Clincy v. Atwood, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2010-CP-00877-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-14-2011 Opinion Author: Carlton, J. Holding: AFFIRMED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Medical care - Due process rights - Medical charge - Section 47-5-179 - Supervisor liability Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Russell, J. Procedural History: Dismissal Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-14-2010 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Lester F. Williamson Disposition: SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF INMATE’S COMPLAINT AS FRIVOLOUS Case Number: 09-CV-130(W) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Roy L. Clincy |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | Daudra Atwood and Dale Caskey | LEE THAGGARD |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Medical care - Due process rights - Medical charge - Section 47-5-179 - Supervisor liability |
| Summary of the Facts: | Roy Clincy, an inmate at the East Mississippi Correctional Facility, filed a complaint against Daudra Atwood, Dale Caskey, and Christopher Epps. Clincy filed a request for administrative remedy with the MDOC through its Administrative Remedy Program, requesting the following: examination and treatment by a doctor, a refund for the medical charge that he incurred for the medical visit, and return of his arthritis medication. Atwood, acting on behalf of the MDOC, denied Clincy’s ARP request, concluding that Clincy saw medical personnel on two separate occasions regarding his alleged arthritis, and Clincy was properly charged for the medical visit. Atwood also informed Clincy that prisoners at the facility are not allowed to keep medications in their prison cells. Shortly thereafter, Clincy filed his second ARP request, which was subsequently denied for similar reasons. Clincy then filed his third ARP request. Clincy sought judicial review of the ARP’s decision seeking the following relief: reimbursement of all monies deducted from his account for medical treatment and care over the past five years; $5,000 in compensatory damages and $3,000 in punitive damages against Caskey; $5,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages against Atwood; and $5,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000 in punitive damages against Epps. The court dismissed the complaint, and Clincy appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Medical care Clincy argues that the denial of medical care amounted to a violation of his due-process rights. Clincy, however, cites no relevant authority supporting this proposition; therefore, this argument is barred from review. In addition, Clincy failed to state any facts or provide relevant evidence to show that he had received insufficient medical care in violation of his constitutional rights. Clincy also argues that the denial of proper medical care subjected him to cruel and unusual treatment. Clincy failed to provide relevant authority or factual support for his argument. Further, Clincy’s argument is factually unsupported by the evidence in the record. Issue 2: Medical charge Clincy argues that section 47-5-179 constitutes a deprivation of his property without due process of law, i.e., that a charge for non-emergency medical care violates his constitutional rights. Clincy again failed to present relevant authority to support these propositions. Also, the evidence in the record indicates that the EMCF personnel abided by MDOC policy and also complied with statutory authority. The record shows that the EMCF personnel did not deny Clincy, or any other inmate, nonemergency medical care due to a lack of funds. Issue 3: Supervisor liability Clincy appears to argue that Atwood and Caskey should be liable for the actions of the EMCF personnel because they allegedly possessed actual knowledge of his medical needs but failed to provide him with treatment. This appeal constitutes an appeal from an agency’s denial of grievances filed by Clincy, pursuant to the MDOC’s ARP. In denying Clincy’s ARP requests, the MDOC reviewed Clincy’s claims regarding the official actions taken in denying the relief sought by Clincy in his ARP grievance. Thus, the trial court properly dismissed Clincy’s complaint. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
