Mahler v. Jamaludeen, 051319 FED4, 18-7495

Docket Nº:18-7495
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:ELIHUE MAHLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ABDUL H. JAMALUDEEN, Doctor/M.D, Defendant-Appellee, and CORPORAL COX, Corporal; DEPUTY BAPTISTE, Deputy, Defendants.
Attorney:Elihue Mahler, Appellant Pro Se. Grace Morse-McNelis, SANDS ANDERSON, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Judge Panel:Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Case Date:May 13, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

ELIHUE MAHLER, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ABDUL H. JAMALUDEEN, Doctor/M.D, Defendant-Appellee,

and

CORPORAL COX, Corporal; DEPUTY BAPTISTE, Deputy, Defendants.

No. 18-7495

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

May 13, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: April 4, 2019

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01468-AJT-IDD)

Elihue Mahler, Appellant Pro Se.

Grace Morse-McNelis, SANDS ANDERSON, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM.

Elihue Martin Mahler appeals the district court's orders and judgment denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and hold that Mahler's cause of action against Dr. Jamaludeen did not accrue until the subsequent x-ray evaluations in 2016. As such, Mahler's appeal was not barred by the statute of limitations. However, we nonetheless agree with the district court that he failed to establish the subjective component of his deliberate indifference claim. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 178 (4th Cir. 2014) (providing standard). The undisputed medical records show that Dr. Jamaludeen relied on a radiologist report that found no abnormalities in Mahler's left wrist or forearm. E.R. 165-66. Therefore, Mahler's claim that Dr. Jamaludeen intentionally lied about his arm being broken is entirely unsupported by the evidence. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).

Accordingly...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP