Henry Unseld Washington v. ROBERT GILMORE, Warden

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
______________
No. 23-2277
______________
HENRY UNSELD WASHINGTON,
Appellant
v.
ROBERT GILMORE, Warden; TRACY SHAWLEY, Warden’s Assistant;
S.P. DURCO, RHU Commander; P.E. BARKEFELT, RHU Lieutenant;
A.J. MORRIS, Lieutenant; C. WILLIAMS, Lieutenant; G. CRABLE, Sergeant; J.M.
SMITH, Sergeant; ROBERT NELSON, Corrections Officer; T.S. OSWALD, Corrections
Officer; L. COMER, Corrections Officer; T.I. BENNETT, Property Officer/Corrections
Officer; R. HENDRICKS, Corrections Officer; J. CODDY, Corrections Officer;
J. HEGETER, Corrections Officer; D. FARRIER, Corrections Officer;
M. STUMP, Corrections Officer; G. TAIT; J.D. SUHAN, Corrections Officer; IRMA
VIHLIDAL, Health Care Administrator; B. JIN, Medical Director; M. PARK; Doctor; P.
DASCANI, Doctor; M. COMER, P.A.; E. MATTES, P.A.; E. MWUARA, P.A.;
P. DENNISON, Corrections Officer
________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(W.D. Pa. No. 2:15-cv-01031)
District Judge: David S. Cercone
________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
September 26, 2024
Before: KRAUSE, BIBAS, and AMBRO, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: January 27, 2025)

-- 1 of 5 --

2
OPINION*
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
Henry Washington is an inmate in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections (the DOC). He alleges, among other things, that Irma Vihlidal, the Correc-
tions Health Care Administrator, violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to ad-
dress his complaints about the quality of his medical care. A magistrate judge recom-
mended that the District Court enter summary judgment for Vihlidal. Washington did not
object to that report and recommendation (the R&R), so the District Court adopted it in
full without additional explanation. Because we agree that there is no genuine factual dis-
pute about whether Vihlidal was deliberately indifferent to Washington’s serious medical
needs, we affirm.
I. Background
Washington is a diagnosed hypochondriac. To treat his hypochondria, the DOC
enacted a plan to ensure a clinician visited him every two weeks. In addition to those
scheduled visits, the DOC also allows him to submit sick-call requests. This meant he
was often seen by a clinician once a week, if not more. Although Washington’s doctors
never detected serious medical issues during their visits, he repeatedly complained about
the quality of his care. Vihlidal was the prison official responsible for reviewing and
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 2 of 5 --

3
responding to his complaints. Her oversight was administrative, not medical, and in-
volved tasks like reviewing Washington’s complaints and discussing his care with medi-
cal staff.
Washington claims that Vihlidal met with him three times between 2009 and 2015
and failed to address his medical complaints adequately each time. According to Wash-
ington, these purported failures amounted to deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In July 2018, Vihlidal moved for summary
judgment. The magistrate judge recommended that the District Court grant the motion
because, among other things, “[t]here is nothing in the record that would lead a reasona-
ble jury to find that . . . Vihlidal was not justified in believing that [Washington] was in
capable hands.”
Despite receiving an express warning from the magistrate judge that he must ob-
ject to the R&R to preserve his appellate rights, Washington failed to do so. The District
Court then adopted the R&R in full without additional reasoning. Washington now ap-
peals the District Court’s order to the extent that it entered summary judgment for
Vihlidal.
II. Discussion
Because Washington failed to object to the R&R and the District Court did not add
any independent reasoning, we review that Court’s order granting summary judgment for
plain error. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 (3d Cir. 2011); see generally Orie v.
Dist. Att’y Allegheny Cnty., 946 F.3d 187, 193–94 (3d Cir. 2019) (noting we may review
an order de novo if the District Court added independent reasoning).

-- 3 of 5 --

4
To prove an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim, “a plaintiff must
make (1) a subjective showing that ‘the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his or
her medical needs’ and (2) an objective showing that ‘those needs were serious.’” Pear-
son v. Prison Health Serv., 850 F.3d 526, 534 (3d Cir. 2017) (brackets omitted) (quoting
Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999)). “If a prisoner is under the care of
medical experts,” then “a non-medical prison official,” like Vihlidal, “will generally be
justified in believing that the prisoner is in capable hands.” Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218,
236 (3d Cir. 2004). “This follows naturally from the division of labor within a prison.”
Id. “[A]bsent a reason to believe (or actual knowledge) that prison doctors or their assis-
tants are mistreating (or not treating) a prisoner, a non-medical prison official . . . will not
be chargeable with the Eighth Amendment scienter requirement of deliberate indiffer-
ence.” Id.
Washington points to no record evidence that Vihlidal knew or had reason to be-
lieve that his doctors were mistreating him. Claiming, without more, that a non-medical
prison official “failed to respond directly to the medical complaints of a prisoner who was
already being treated by the prison doctor” is not enough to show deliberate indifference.
Durmer v. O’Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 69 (3d Cir. 1993). But that is all Washington alleges.
If anything, the record suggests that Vihlidal had every reason to believe Washington was
receiving appropriate care—he received precautionary medical visits biweekly as well as
frequent additional sick-call visits.

-- 4 of 5 --

5
On this record, we cannot say the District Court plainly erred in holding that there
is no genuine factual dispute about whether Vihlidal knew or had reason to believe Wash-
ington was being mistreated. We thus affirm.

-- 5 of 5 --