USCA1 Opinion

September 26, 1995

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

___________________

No.

94-2062

BERNARDO FIGUEROA,
Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

GEORGE A. VOSE, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

____________________

ERRATA SHEET

Opinion

of this

court

issued on

September

22, 1995,

is

amended as follows:

On page 3, line 11: replace the words "had worked" with "had
not worked".

September 22, 1995

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 94-2062

BERNARDO FIGUEROA,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

GEORGE A. VOSE, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

[Hon. Robert W. Lovegreen, U.S. Magistrate Judge]

_____________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge,

___________
Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
______________

____________________

Bernardo Figueroa on brief pro se.

_________________
David J. Gentile on Memorandum In
_________________

Support of

Disposition for appellees.

____________________

____________________

Motion for Summ

Per Curiam.
___________

district

court's

officials

and medical

U.S.C.

his

care

Bernardo

judgment

for certain

supports

essentially

the

favor

of

In his

various

from the

prison

action under

42

alleged that defendants had violated

rights by

eye

denying him

ailments.

district

for the

in

personnel.

1983, Figueroa

Eighth Amendment

Figueroa appeals

court's

reasons given

proper medical

Because the

judgment,

in the

record amply

we

affirm,

district court's

decision.

1994).

See
___

Figueroa v.
________

We add

only the

Vose, 874 F.
____

Supp. 500

following comments

(D.R.I.

about certain

arguments made on appeal.

First,

although

refused to permit

the

facts

additional

parties

Figueroa

two physicians to

do

not support

day

of trial,

to present

any

his

the

claims that

the

testify on his

claim.

court

behalf,

In scheduling

district

court ordered

remaining testimony

at that

an

the

time.

Figueroa told the court that he had no further witnessess.

Second, Figueroa

pattern

of

demonstrates

medical needs.

which Figueroa

missed

outside

defendants'

The

claims that

the

medical

deliberate

record documents

record shows

appointments

indifference

only one

missed an outside medical

which

to

his

occasion on

appointment due to

circumstances within

the prison's control.

In August 1993,

prison officials brought him to the Rhode Island Hospital eye

clinic

on the wrong day.

They rescheduled the appointment,

however, and the rescheduled

a few

appointments were

appointment was kept.

missed due to

Although

circumstances beyond

the

prison's control,

rescheduled and

kept.

all

such appointments

Figueroa

with outside physicians which

were promptly

had numerous

appointments

were not missed.

Accordingly,

the magistrate

correctly found

that defendants'

bring Figueroa

to certain medical appointments

failure to

did not show

their deliberate indifference to his medical needs.

Third,

have admitted

Figueroa argues that

into evidence

the court

should not

a computer printout,

which was

prepared by the prison payroll department and which allegedly

showed that

corrections officer

worked on April 23 and

the printout

had

Alfred Lancellotti had

24, 1993.

The court

determined that

verified Lancellotti's trial testimony

not worked

on

the

days

in question.

not

We

that he

need

not

determine whether

into

evidence,

the court erred in

or

in

determining

Lancellotti's trial

testimony, since

have been harmless.

Figueroa hoped

had worked

on

establish two

days

--

April 23

defendants,

and

other facts

first,

that

nurse,

admitting the printout

that

any

it

such error

1993, in

order

that allegedly occurred

tell him

would

to show that Lancellotti

April 24,

Lancellotti

had

that

heard

she

did

particular medication for him; and, second, that

had signed written requests

supported

one

to

on those

of

not have

the

Lancellotti

by Figueroa for that medication.

-3-

Demonstrating

defendants'

needs,

either

deliberate

however.

Figueroa

of

those

indifference

The record

sought was

facts would

prison

staff

Naphcon-A, which an

doctors

show

to Figueroa's

indicates that

had recommended on April 20, 1993.

that

not

the

medical

the medication

outside specialist

But the record also shows

had

never

prescribed

that

medication for Figueroa in April 1993 and that a prescription

by a staff doctor

by

outside

was required before medication recommended

physicians

could

be

given

to

an

inmate.

Consequently, assuming that the

she did not have

right,

and

nurse did tell Figueroa that

the medication he sought, she

her

statement

does

not

evidence

indifference to Figueroa's medical needs.

that

Figueroa

did

submit

medication,

the

failure

demonstrate

defendants'

medical needs, absent a

to

was entirely

deliberate

Likewise, assuming

written

requests

for

give

to

would

not

to

his

it

deliberate

him

indifference

that

showing that the prison unreasonably

delayed in having a staff doctor evaluate the appropriateness

of the medication and then issuing

a prescription.

Figueroa

made no such showing.

Since

demonstrate

the

would

facts

Figueroa

not have

shown

ultimately

sought

to

defendants' culpability,

showing that

statement

advanced

or

Lancellotti

signed

Figueroa's

could have

Figueroa's

cause.

witnessed the

requests

Hence,

would

nurse's

not

have

the

admission of

the

that

Lancellotti

was

-4-

payroll

printout

allegedly

absent from work on the

showing

days in question and could

not have

known about the

determination

testimony

events alleged by Figueroa,

that

that

the

he

printout

was

and the court's

confirmed

absent,

could

not

Lancellotti's

have

been

prejudicial.

Finally, Figueroa argues that defendants have never

returned him to an outside dermatologist regarding the lesion

on his eyelid.

to

do so.

The

The

last

recommended seeing

did

not heal.

the lesion left

record indicates that there was no

physician

to

evaluate

a dermatologist again only

the

need

lesion

if the lesion

In his appellate papers, Figueroa states that

a scar

lesion has healed.

Affirmed.
_________

on his eyelid,

indicating that

the

-5-