Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Vigil v. Walters, 10th Cir. (2012)
Vigil v. Walters, 10th Cir. (2012)
Vigil v. Walters, 10th Cir. (2012)
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TERRY VIGIL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
No. 11-1359
(D.C. No. 1:09-CV-02886-PAB-MEH)
(D. Colorado)
v.
POLLY WALTERS, RN; KARLIN
WERNER, RN; JERE SUTTON,
Physician; LOUIS CABLING,
Physician,
Defendants - Appellees.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this court has
determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
the medical treatment he received, such claims do not assert violations of federal
constitutional rights. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) ([A]
complaint that a physician has been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical
condition does not state a valid claim of medical mistreatment under the Eighth
Amendment.). To the extent the complaint raises claims of constitutional
magnitude, however, we agree with the district court that Vigil presented no
evidence from which deliberate indifference to his medical needs could be
inferred. The record contains no evidence he suffered any complications or
serious harm from Defendants actions, including the alleged delay in being
examined by Defendant Sutton or the alleged delay in scheduling his surgery.
Neither has he presented any evidence from which a reasonable jury could
conclude Defendants acted with the culpable state of mind required by the Eighth
Amendment.
Upon de novo review of Vigils complaint and appellate brief, the
magistrate judges recommendation, the district courts orders, and the entire
record on appeal, this court affirms the district courts grant of summary
judgment to Defendants for substantially those reasons stated by the district court.
Vigils application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, but he is reminded
he remains obligated to continue making partial payments until his appellate
-5-
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-6-