Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Albert Russell v. C.C. Sheffer, Superintendent Botetourt Correctional Unit, and Carolyn Maupia, L.P.N., Botetourt Correctional Unit

528 F.2d 318

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1975-12-19
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that “questions of medical judgment are not subject to judicial review” under § 1983
  • holding that “[q]uestions of medical judgment are not subject to judicial review”
  • holding that “mistreatment or non-treatment must be capable of characterization as “cruel and unusual punishment’ in order to present a colorable claim under § 1983” and that “[q]uestions of medical judgment are not subject to judicial review’
  • noting an inmate’s allegations of unreasonable medical care “must reach constitutional dimension before a federal court will interfere with the internal operations” of a penal facility and that “[q]uestions of medical judgment are not subject to judicial review”
  • “[M]istreatment or non-treatment must be capable of characterization as ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ in order to present a colorable claim”
  • “[M]istreatment or nontreatment must be capable of characterization as ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ in order to present a colorable claim . . . .”
  • “[Ml]istreatment or non-treatment must be capable of characterization as ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ in order to present a colorable claim... .”’
  • plaintiff was under “constant medical supervision from the time of his arrival” in state prison and “[q]uestions of medical judgment are not subject to judicial review”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Albert Russell v. C.C. Sheffer, Superintendent Botetourt Correctional Unit, and Carolyn Maupia, L.P.N., Botetourt Correctional Unit. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
290 opinions
RUSSELL v. SHEFFER,528 F.2d 318(4th Cir. 1975)
ALBERT RUSSELL, APPELLANT v. C. C. SHEFFER, SUPERINTENDENT BOTETOURT
CORRECTIONAL UNIT,
AND
CAROLYN MAUPIN, L.P.N., BOTETOURT CORRECTIONAL UNIT, APPELLEES.
No. 75-1423.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted November 24, 1975.
Decided December 19, 1975.
Albert Russell, appellant pro se.

Stuart Bateman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia.
Before RUSSELL, FIELD, and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Albert Russell instituted an action pursuant to42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that he was being denied adequate medical treatment while incarcerated at Botetourt Correctional Field Unit. The District Court, on the basis of affidavits and exhibits, granted summary judgment for the defendants. We affirm.

[2] Prisoners are entitled to reasonable medical care.Blanks v.Cunningham,409 F.2d 220(4th Cir. 1969);Hirons v. Director,351 F.2d 613(4th Cir. 1965). However, mistreatment or nontreatment must be capable of characterization as "cruel and unusual punishment" in order to present a colorable claim under § 1983.Gittlemacker v.Page 319Prasse,428 F.2d 1,6(3rd Cir. 1970). The prisoner's allegations must reach constitutional dimension before a federal court will interfere with the internal operations of a state penal facility.Hirons v. Director,351 F.2d 613(4th Cir. 1965).

[3] Russell's claims do not rise to this level. The affidavits submitted to the District Court reflect that Russell was under constant medical supervision from the time of his arrival at Botetourt. Questions of medical judgment are not subject to judicial review.Shields v. Kunkel,442 F.2d 409(9th Cir. 1971).

[4] Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.Page 321