MATTINGLY v. DUVAL COUNTY JAIL (2019)

Casey Mattingly, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment for the defendants on his Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to medical needs. In its order, the district court concluded that the testimony and the medical records, far from establishing constitutional violations, showed that Mr. Mattingly “received consistent and adequate medical evaluation and treatment.” D.E. 83 at 29. After careful review of the record, we affirm.

Mr. Mattingly's reference to particular instances of the defendants’ alleged failures to provide him with adequate care do not, even viewing them in the light most favorable to him, see S. Solvents, Inc. v. N.H. Ins. Co., 91 F.3d 102, 104 (11th Cir. 1996), rise to the level of constitutional violations. As the district court pointed out, the defendants were responsive to Mr. Mattingly's complaints, and he was treated at more than one hospital. That the defendants did not provide Mr. Mattingly with his desired course of treatment, or comply with the recommendations of outside medical professionals, is insufficient to create an issue of fact on a deliberate indifference claim. “[A] simple difference in medical opinion between the prison's medical staff and the inmate as to the latter's diagnosis or course of treatment does not support a claim of deliberate indifference.” Melton v. Abston, 841 F.3d 1207, 1224 (11th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, we agree with the district court and adopt its reasoning as our own.

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM: