United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
pro se and in forma pauperis, Cedric
Jermaine Manior brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
against Correct Health and Chatham County Detention Center.
The Court now screens his Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
Manior is detained at Chatham County Detention Center and
contends that, despite requesting and filing grievances to
ensure that “further medical treatment” be
provided for his back, eyesight, and memory, he has been
ignored. Doc. 1 at 3. On February 24, 2017, the medical team
was summoned to his cell to check his vitals and he was
placed “under monitoring.” Id. at 5.
“Nurse Copper” told him he'd suffered from a
“pin stroke” and altered his diet accordingly.
Id. His eyesight and memory have deteriorated
noticeably since the incident, and he has continued to
experience headaches, poor eyesight, and has blacked out at
least once. Id. Instead of getting the
“outside treatment” he “was looking forward
to . . . from [the Hospital], ” including an
“EMG, ” he was only placed on high blood pressure
medication. Id. at 3. He believes the treatment
provided was inadequate to address his actual medical needs,
and seeks $85, 000 to provide for his future medical care
upon release from his sentence. Id. at 6.
construed, plaintiff sets forth a claim for denial of medical
care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994) (the Constitution
imposes a duty upon prison officials to “ensure that
inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical
care.”). “[N]ot every claim by a prisoner that he
has not received adequate medical treatment, ” however
“states a violation of the Eighth Amendment.”
Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1505 (11th Cir.
1991) (quotes and cite omitted). Rather, “an inmate
must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to
evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976). A prisoner must show that: (1) he had a serious
medical need; (2) defendants were deliberately indifference
to that need; and (3) some injury was caused by
defendants' indifference. Goebert v. Lee Cty.,
510 F.3d 1312, 1326 (11th Cir. 2007).
that plaintiff's stroke was an objectively serious
medical need,  defendants did not show deliberate
indifference to that need. Such a showing requires:
“(1) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm;
(2) disregard of that risk; (3) by conduct that is more than
gross negligence.” Youmans, 626 F.3d at 564
(quote omitted and alteration adopted). Here, medical care
was provided both at the time of the stroke (medical staff
responded, provided triage care, and put him under
observation) and since (Manior has been put on high blood
pressure medication and placed on an appropriate diet to
mitigate risk of further incident). Doc. 1 at 5.
most, Manior alleges that staff was negligent in its
provision of medical care. And the Constitution requires more
than mere negligence to rise to an Eighth Amendment
violation. See Bingham v. Thomas, 654 F.3d 1171,
1176 (11th Cir. 2011) (“Conduct that is more than mere
negligence includes: (1) grossly inadequate care; (2) a
decision to take an easier but less efficacious course of
treatment; and (3) medical care that is so cursory as to
amount to no treatment at all.”). He disagrees with the
type of care provided (he wants to go to the hospital for an
EMG), but mere disagreement does not rise to a constitutional
violation. Melton v. Abston, 841 F.3d 1207, 1224
(11th Cir. 2016) (when a claim turns on the quality of
treatment provided, “a simple difference in medical
opinion between the prison's medical staff and the inmate
as to [his] diagnosis or course of treatment does not support
a claim of deliberate indifference.”) (quote and cite
omitted); Hamm v. DeKalb Cty., 774 F.2d 1567, 1575
(11th Cir. 1985) (deliberate indifference is not established
when an inmate receives medical care, but “may have
desired different modes of treatment.”). In other
words, “medical malpractice does not become a
constitutional violation merely because the victim is a
prisoner.” Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104.
a pro se prisoner normally should be given an
opportunity to amend his complaint at least once, see,
e.g., Johnson v. Boyd, 568 Fed.Appx. 719, 724 (11th Cir.
2014); Duff v. Steub, 378 Fed.Appx. 868, 872 (11th
Cir. 2010), “a district court need not allow amendment
if the amended complaint would still be subject to
dismissal.” Jenkins v. Walker, 620 Fed.Appx.
709, 711 (11th Cir. 2015). Plaintiff's medical negligence
claim is dead on arrival, and it does not appear
Cedric Jermaine Manior's Complaint should be
DISMISSED without prejudice. Meanwhile, it
is time for Manior to pay his filing fee. His PLRA paperwork
reflects an average monthly balance of $ -21.70 and average
monthly deposits of $29.42. Doc. 9. He therefore owes an
initial partial filing fee of $0. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b) (1) (requiring an initial fee assessment
“when funds exist, ” under a specific 20 percent
formula). Plaintiff's custodian (or designee) shall
therefore set aside and remit 20 percent of all future
deposits to his account, then forward those funds to the
Clerk each time the set aside amount reaches $10.00, until
the balance of the Court's $350.00 filing fee has been
paid in full.
the Clerk is DIRECTED to send this Report
and Recommendation (R&R) to plaintiff's account
custodian immediately, as this payment directive is
nondispositive within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a), so
no Rule 72(b) adoption is required. In the event he is
transferred to another institution, his present custodian
shall forward a copy of this R&R and all financial
information concerning payment of the filing fee and costs in
this case to plaintiff's new custodian. The balance due
from plaintiff shall be collected by the custodian at his
next institution in accordance with the terms of the payment
directive portion of this Order.
R&R is submitted to the district judge assigned to this
action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this
Court's Local Rule 72.3. Within 14 days of service, any
party may file written objections to this R&R with the
Court and serve a copy on all parties. The document should be
captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendations.” Any request for additional time
to file objections should be filed with the Clerk for
consideration by the assigned district judge.
the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this
R&R together with any objections to the assigned district
judge. The district judge will review the magistrate
judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that
failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver
of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v.
V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 Fed.Appx. 787, 790 (11th Cir.
2016); Mitchell v. U.S., 612 Fed.Appx. 542, 545
(11th Cir. 2015).