green
Positive treatment
Doctrinal family: Domino v. Texas Department of Cr… ↗
Issue: unreasonable violationTX ↗
Quoted verbatim 2×
65.3 score
G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 2019–2025 · 3 courts ·
…deliberate indifference exists wholly independent of an optimal standard of care.
⚠ not in text
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2013–2025 · 4 courts ·
…the treatment may not have been the best that money could buy, and occasionally, a dose of medication may have been forgotten, but these deficiencies were minimal, they do not show an unreasonable standard of care, and they fall far short of establishing deliberate indifference …
at p. 91
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Eddy v. Reynolds
continuing back pain is unpleasant. its existence does not, however, in and of itself demonstrate that a constitutional violation occurred.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Palmer v. Cain
claim for inadequate medical care would succeed only if plaintiff proved that the denial of care constituted 'deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Amy Elizabeth Terry v. Orleans Parish Justice Center, et al.
F toot iprovide treatment that is ‘the best that money could buy[.]’” (quoting , 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Thaddeus Jarvis v. Burl Cain, et al.
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Donald Sylvas v. Jeremy Wiley et al
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has noted: “The treatment may not have been the best that money could buy, and occasionally, a dose of medication may have been forgotten, but these deficiencies were minimal, they do not show an unreasonable standard of care, and they fall short of establishing deliberate indifference by the prison authorities.” , 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Denarius Antone Roscoe v. Sunflower County, et al.
II Analysis A. Denial of Medical Care To prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim for denial of medical care, a plaintiff must allege facts which demonstrate “deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners [which] constitutes ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain’ proscribed by the Eighth Amendment . . . whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner’s needs or prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 , 104–05 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Torrey v. Vitacor
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gardner 770380 v. Pants
See, e.g., Walker v. Peters, 233 F.3d 494, 501 (7th Cir. 2000) (discussing that isolated incidents of delay in administering medications does not constitute deliberate indifference); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992) (holding that an occasional missed dose of medication does not, without more, constitute deliberate indifference); cf. Barnett v. Luttrell, 414 F. App’x 784, 788 (6th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal of claim that prison nurse gave the prisoner-plaintiff the wrong medication because the complaint “allege[d] no facts suggesting that [defendant’s] incorrect ad…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
McCaley v. Morris
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Patterson v. Guidroz
Prisoners are not entitled to “the best [treatment] that money could buy.” Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dismukes v. Lockheart
Prisoners are not entitled to the best treatment “that money [can] buy.” Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Knight v. Nobles
The medical treatment that Plaintiff received at the Perry County Jail “may not have been the best that money could buy,” see Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992), but the evidence before the Court shows that his complaints were not refused, ignored, or intentionally handled incorrectly.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Burdette v. Mississippi Department of Corrections
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ivory v. Sosa
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Simerly v. Blount County Jail Medical Staff
See Bellotto v. Cnty. of Orange, 248 F. App’x 232, 237 (2nd Cir. 2007) (finding county jail did not show deliberate indifference to medical condition of pretrial detainee when he missed doses of medication due to inadequate monitoring and the only consequence was anxiety attack, which resulted in no physical injuries); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992) (finding an occasional missed dose of medication does not, without more, constitute deliberate indifference); Zentmeyer v. Kendall Cnty., 220 F.3d 805 , 812 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that the occasional missed dose of medicine…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James v. Sunflower County Sheriffs Department
In order to prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim for denial of medical care, a plaintiff must allege facts which demonstrate -7- “deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners [which] constitutes ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain’ proscribed by the Eighth Amendment . . . whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors or prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care....” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-105 , 50 L, Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5" Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Drake v. MS Dept. of Corrections
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
James v. Sunflower County Sheriffs Department
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Evans v. Gillard
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
San Miguel v. McLane
However, he asserts that this reasoning was a lie and the real reason was “cutting spending.” Additionally, after stopping these medications, he asserts Bearden ignored his request for medical attention while he was _____________________ 37 See Fielder v. Bosshard, 590 F.2d 105, 107 (5th Cir. 1979) (“Mere negligence, neglect or medical malpractice is insufficient.”). 38 See, e.g., Petzold, 946 F.3d at 250 (“But, because medical treatment was provided, even if it was negligent, disagreed-with, and based on a perfunctory and inadequate evaluation, it was not denied.”). 39 Sanchez v. …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. Rosa
(2×)
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ramirez v. Varughese
An inmate’s continuing pain from a preexisting condition, standing alone, “does not . . . demonstrate that a constitutional violation occurred.” Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rodriguez v. California Department of Corrections
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stewart v. Bailey
Mich. Apr. 4, 2002) (concluding that “[a]n occasional missed dose [of medicine], and missed scheduled, non-emergency medical appointments, do not pose a ‘substantial risk of serious harm’” sufficient to satisfy the objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim); see also Zentmeyer v. Kendall Cnty., 220 F.3d 805 , 812 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that the occasional missed dose of medicine, without more, does not violate the Eighth Amendment); Mayweather v. Fote, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992) (concluding that occasionally missed doses of medicine “fall far short” of establishing de…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Guines v. Clay County
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5" Cir, 1992), The test for establishing deliberate indifference is one of “subjective recklessness as used in the criminal law.” Farmer v, Brennan, 511 US, 825, 837 (1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gladney v. Lee County
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91,91 (5 Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Curry, Jr. v. Lee County Detention Center
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Burrage v. Lee County Adult Jail
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Carpenter v. Itawamba Co. Jail
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Thompson v. Lee County
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jobe v. Mississippi Department of Corrections
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Guines v. Miss. Dept. of Corrections
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Havens v. Tallahatchie County Sheriff's Department
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Havens v. Tallahatchie County Sheriff's Department
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Boyd v. Spencer
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hull v. Lee County Adult Jail
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. Lee County
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5" Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. Turner
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jarvis v. Hall, in Official Capacity and Successor
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
White v. Owing
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Daniels 657826 v. Unknown Party 1
Thus, while Defendant may have purposely failed to dispense Plaintiff’s pain medicine, this alone would not satisfy the subjective component of an Eighth Amendment violation. missed a morning dose of medication; no showing that this was an instance of callous disregard in the face of a pressing medical emergency), Mayweather v. Fote, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992) (occasionally missed doses of medicine “fall far short” of establishing deliberate indifference); Stockwell v. Kanan, 442 F. App’x 911, 914 (5th Cir. 2011) (same); Herndon v. Whitworth, 924 F. Supp. 1171 (N.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ables v. Knighten
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pugh v. Thigpen
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5" Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Callaway v. Morris
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rigsby v. Johnson
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5" Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Powers v. Epps
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5" Cir. 1992), The test for establishing deliberate indifference is one of “subjective recklessness as used in the criminal law.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 USS. 825, 837 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gunn v. Management Training Corp
The standard for analyzing the Plaintiff=s denial of medical care claim is well established and has been set forth in a thorough manner, as follows: In order to prevail on an Eighth Amendment claim for denial of medical care, a plaintiff must allege facts which demonstrate "deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners [which] constitutes 'unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain' proscribed by the Eighth Amendment . . . whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors or prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care. . . ." Estelle v. G…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
VanWagner v. Faulks
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5" Cir. 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Peters v. Singh
Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001). 35 Id. (quoting Johnson, 759 F.2d at 1238 ). 36 Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 838 (1994)(citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)). 37 Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992). 58211 Page 6 of 39 Indeed, the Fifth Circuit has held that the Eighth Amendment “proscribes only medical care so unconscionable as to fall below society’s minimum standards of decency.”38 For a prison official to be held liable, “the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious ha…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bennett v. Morris
Ed. 2d 251, 260 (1976); Mayweather v. Foti, 958 F.2d 91, 91 (5th Cir. 1992).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Roger MAYWEATHER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Charles C. FOTI, Jr., Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
v.
Charles C. FOTI, Jr., Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
91-3650.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Apr 10, 1992.
Roger Mayweather, pro se., Alexander Adam Lambert, Jr., Freeman R. Matthews, Usry & Weeks, Metairie, La., for defendants-appellees.
Jones, Duhé, Wiener.
Cited by 103 opinions | Published
Citer courts: N.D. Mississippi (1) · S.D. Mississippi (1)
EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Mayweather challenges the district court’s dismissal with prejudice, following a trial to the magistrate, of his complaint for constitutionally inadequate medical care while in the Orleans Parish prison. To the extent that treatment for his back injury occurred while he was a pretrial detainee, he was entitled to “reasonable medical care,” Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 85 (5th Cir.1987); after conviction, his claim for inadequate medical care would succeed only if he proved that the denial of care constituted “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976).
Contrary to Mayweather’s complaints, the record shows that he received continuous treatment for his back injury despite his incarceration. The treatment may not have been the best that money could buy, and occasionally, a dose of medication may have been forgotten, but these deficiencies were minimal, they do not show an unreasonable standard of care, and they fall far short of establishing deliberate indifference by the prison authorities. Continuing back pain is unpleasant. Its existence does not, however, in and of itself demonstrate that a constitutional violation occurred.
[*92] The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.