Wester v. Jones
4th Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2025Collins D.S.C.
- 2025Alston v. Lawson D.S.C.
- 2025Michael v. Givens S.D.W. Va
- 2025Cooper v. Wallens Ridge State Prison W.D. Va.
- 2025Bolton v. South Carolina Department of Corrections D.S.C.
- 2025Green v. Baldwin D.S.C.
- 2023Giddings v. Green D. Maryland
- 2023Giddings v. Charriez D. Maryland
- 2023Shiheed v. Smith D. Maryland
- 2023Morgan v. Sisay D. Maryland
Cites 1 case
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Willie WESTER, Appellant, v. David L. JONES, C. T. Gaudle, Randy Garris, Kelly Future, Dr. Robertson, all sued Individually and in their official capacity, Appellees.
Judges
- Before WINTER and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges, and FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Attorneys
- Thomas W. Meiklejohn, Third Year Law Student (Ralph S. Spritzer, Philadelphia, Pa., on brief), for appellant.
- Jacob L. Safron, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Raleigh, N. C. (Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen., North Carolina, Raleigh, N. C., on brief), for appellees.
Willie Wester, a North Carolina prisoner, appeals the summary judgment of the district court dismissing his claim against the prison authorities for failure to provide prompt and adequate medical care in violation of the eighth and fourteenth amendments. He contends the district court erred in granting summary judgment because there was a genuine issue of material fact. We affirm the judgment.
When Wester was given a physical examination upon his imprisonment, he related that he had injured his left eye in childhood. The examiner classified his vision in this eye as 20/200. The following year, Wester complained several times during a three month period of pain and further loss of vision in his left eye. Wester contends that the prison doctor, a general practitioner, cursorily examined him after his initial complaint and never reexamined him despite his later complaints. The doctor, however, claims that he examined Wester several times and never diagnosed a medical problem with his eye.
After Wester filed his complaint in the district court, the doctor arranged for consultation with an eye specialist. The specialist found that Wester’s vision in his left eye had deteriorated to 20/400 and that he suffered from a detached retina and iritis. After this diagnosis, Wester received adequate treatment, but his vision could not be restored.
In Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-105, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976), the Supreme Court held that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes unnecessary infliction of pain proscribed by the eighth amendment. Measured by this standard, Wester’s allegations do not state a constitutional claim. It is undisputed that the doctor examined Wester and found no medical problem. Wester’s continued complaints about the same symptoms did not persuade him to change this diagnosis on subsequent occasions. Even if the doctor were negligent in examining Wester and in making an incorrect diagnosis, his failure to exercise sound professional judgment would not constitute deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Consequently, Wester’s own version of the facts do not support his claim for violation of the eighth amendment. We therefore conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the prison authorities.
Affirmed.