In re Colbert, 915 F.2d 1564 (3rd Cir. 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Colbert, 915 F.2d 1564 (3rd Cir. 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“here is ample authority recognizing that the failure to provide comparable basic corrective/medical devices may amount to deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.”
42 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Antonio M. Lacy v. Anthony C. Myles, et al. (txsd, 2026-02-25) · Strongest negative: Bolden v. Murray (vaed, 1994-01-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" Bolden v. Murray
E.D. Va. · 1994 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Emanuel v. Witkowski, No. 90-6573, 915 F.2d 1564 , Unpublished Disposition (table, text in Westlaw), 1990 WL 148486 (4th Cir.1990).
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Antonio M. Lacy v. Anthony C. Myles, et al.
S.D. Tex. · 2026 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
here is ample authority recognizing that the failure to provide comparable basic corrective/medical devices may amount to deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MARBET v. JOHN DOE
E.D. Pa. · 2025 · confidence medium
Ctr., 915 F.2d 1564, at *2 (4th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision) (holding that “under appropriate circumstances, the refusal to supply a hearing aid to a convict could constitute deliberate indifference to a serious medical need”); Gilmore v. Hodges, 738 F.3d 266, 275-76 (11th Cir. 2013) (holding that the denial of a hearing aid to an inmate could form the basis of an Eighth Amendment claim because “[t]he ability to hear is a basic human need materially affecting daily activity and a substantial hearing impairment plainly requires medical treatment by a physician”);…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Posey v. Dewalt
E.D. Va. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Emanuel v. Witkowski, 915 F.2d 1564 (4th Cir.1990) (unpublished) (holding that the district court should have considered inmate’s claim challenging the adverse effects of a foreign jurisdiction’s detainer on the conditions of his confinement).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sobky v. Smoley
E.D. Cal. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
See id. at 78; see also Guidice v. Jackson, 726 F.Supp. 632, 635 (E.D.Va.1989) (quoting Social Security Board, Social Security in America, A Summary of Staff Reports of the Committee on Economic Security 161, 191 (1937) (“The Committee recommended that responsibility for administration of the assistance be centralized within the state to ‘avoid a diversity of operating standards in the subdivisions within the [s]tate[s].’ ”)), aff'd, 915 F.2d 1564 (4th Cir.1990) (table).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Laurence D. Colbert, Surgical Division, Private Diagnostic Clinic, Duke University Medical Center
v.
Edward L. Abrams, Mary R. Abrams v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, Inc., General Electric Company, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Third Party
90-2357.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Oct 12, 1990.
915 F.2d 1564
Unpublished

915 F.2d 1564
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
In re Laurence D. COLBERT, Appellant,
SURGICAL DIVISION, PRIVATE DIAGNOSTIC CLINIC, DUKE
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Plaintiff,
v.
Edward L. ABRAMS, Mary R. Abrams, Defendants,
v.
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC., General
Electric Company, Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, Third Party Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-2357.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 10, 1990.
Decided Oct. 12, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CA-89-774-D-C)

Laurence D. Colbert, appellant pro se.

Mark Stanton Thomas, Maupin, Taylor, Ellis & Adams, P.A., Raleigh, N.C., for appellees.

M.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before K.K. HALL, MURNAGHAN and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Laurence D. Colbert appeals from the district court's order imposing sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 and Rule 122 of the Local Rules of the Middle District of North Carolina. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Surgical Division, Duke Univ. Medical Center v. Abrams, CA-89-774-D-C (M.D.N.C. Feb. 28, 1990). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

2

AFFIRMED.