Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Albert Russell, Appellant, v. C.c. Sheffer, Superintendent Botetourt Correctional Unit,and Carolyn Maupia, L.p.n., Botetourt Correctionalunit, Appellees
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. - 528 F.2d 318
Submitted Nov. 24, 1975.Decided Dec. 19, 1975
Albert Russell, appellant pro se.
Stuart Batement, Asst.Atty.Gen., for appellee.
Before RUSSELL, FIELD, and WIDENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Albert Russell instituted an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 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.
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 non-treatment must be capable of characterization as "cruel and unusual punishment" in order to present a colorable claim under Sec. 1983. Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 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).
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).
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.