in Murphy v. Cobb County Adult Detention Center

Murphy asked for an extra 30 days to respond to a motion to dismiss, but failed to answer and thus lost his opportunity to do so. Here he had got in a terrible care wreck and was attending physical therapy and was on prescription medication prior to his arrest. The jail followed up and just gave him a tylenol for his back pain. He sued. But without access to a law library it is difficult for a pro-se plaintiff to plead what he must to survive a section 1983 claim.

The Court finds no plain error in the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff’s back pain does not constitute a serious medical need. See Slay 714 F.2d at 1095; see also Wilson v. Smith, 567 F. App’x 676, 678 (11th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he medical need must be one that, if left unattended, poses a substantial risk of serious harm.”); Burley v. Upton, 257 F. App’x 207, 210 (11th Cir. 2007) (“lower back pain is not the type of serious condition this circuit requires” because it is not “so serious that ‘if left unattended, [it] pose[d] a substantial risk of serious harm.’”) (citations omitted). The Magistrate Judge found also that Plaintiff did not allege any specific factual allegations against Hendrix in that would put Hendrix on notice of the claim against him. (R&R at 10). The Magistrate Judge noted that Plaintiff alleges only that a “physician’s assistant” administered him Tylenol for his back pain and that Plaintiff was not referred to a “certified doctor.” (Id.; see also Compl. at 5). The Magistrate Judge found that these allegations do not connect Hendrix to the alleged denial of medical care or provide a basis for the Court to find that Hendrix knew of the alleged risk of harm to Plaintiff. (R&R at 10). The Magistrate Judge noted further that, at most, Plaintiff’s allegation regarding the physician assistant’s prescription of Tylenol constitutes a mere disagreement with the course of treatment, and does not constitute a deliberate indifference to his medical needs. (Id.). The Court finds no plain error in these findings or conclusions, and Plaintiff’s claims against Hendrix are required to be dismissed. See Slay 714 F.2d at 1095; see also Smith v. Florida Dep’t of Corr., 375 F. App’x 905, 910 (11th Cir. 2010) ( a “simple difference in medical opinion between the prison's medical staff and the inmate” regarding the course of treatment does not state an Eighth Amendment claim.”) (citations omitted);

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/georgia/gandce/1:2012cv03317/187774/42/