Shirkey v. Rutherford

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• affirming dismissal of Eighth Amendment claim as appropriate because a “persistent rash” was not a “serious medical condition”
• affirming dismissal on basis that plaintiff had failed to state that “persistent rash” was a “serious medical condition”
• “Lewal’s desire to be examined by an independent specialist, in the face of the FCI’s conclusion that further testing is unwarranted, is nothing more than a dispute between patient and doctor over the proper diagnosis for his symptoms, and is therefore not cognizable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).