CPS-127 N O T PRECEDENTIAL

U N IT E D STATES COURT OF APPEALS

F O R THE THIRD CIRCUIT

N O . 05-4027

R O L A N D WILLIAM DANIELS,

Appellant

v. C O R R E C T I O N A L MEDICAL SERVICE;

D R . KEITH IVENS; NURSE DOTTIE

O n Appeal From the United States District Court

F o r the District of Delaware

(D .C . Civ. No. 03-cv-00085)

D is tric t Judge: Honorable Sue L. Robinson

S u b m itte d For Possible Dismissal Under 28U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action

U n d e r Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

F e b ru a ry 16, 2006

B e f o re : BARRY, SMITH AND NYGAARD, CIRCUIT JUDGES

(F ile d : March 14, 2006)

OPINION

P E R CURIAM R o lan d Daniels appeals the District Court's order granting appellees' motion to d i sm is s and appellees' motion for summary judgment. The procedural history of this case a n d the details of Daniels's claims are well-known to the parties, set forth in the District C o u rt's thorough opinion, and need not be discussed at length. Briefly, Daniels alleged th a t appellees denied him proper medical treatment for stomach pain and this led to m o n th s of suffering after his appendix burst. The District Court granted appellees' m o tio n s to dismiss and for summary judgment, and Daniels filed a timely notice of a p p e a l.

W e have jurisdiction under 28U.S.C. § 1291. We review a dismissal pursuant to R u le 4(m) for an abuse of discretion. See Ayres v. Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., 99 F.3d 565, 5 6 8 (3d Cir. 1996). We exercise plenary review over the District Court's order granting a p p e lle e s' motion for summary judgment. Gallo v. City of Philadelphia, 161 F.3d 217, 2 2 1 (3d Cir. 1998). A grant of summary judgment will be affirmed if our review reveals th a t "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We review the facts in a light m o s t favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered. See C o o lspring Stone Supply, Inc. v. American States Life Ins. Co., 10 F.3d 144, 146 (3d Cir. 1 9 9 3 ). In order to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment for denial of medical care, D a n ie ls must show that the appellees were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical n e e d s . Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 , 104 (1976). Deliberate indifference can be shown b y a prison official "intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or in te n tio n a lly interfering with the treatment once prescribed." Id. at 104. A medical need is serious if it is one "that has been diagnosed by a physician as requiring treatment or one that is so obvious that a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's a tte n tio n ." Monmouth County Correctional Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 347 (3d Cir. 1987).

In its opinion, the District Court thoroughly summarizes the history of the medical c a re Daniels received for his complaints. We have nothing to add to its summary or a n a lys is . We agree with the District Court that appellees were not deliberately indifferent to Daniels's medical needs. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing th e complaint as to Dr. Ivens and Nurse Dottie for failure to serve.

S u m m a ry action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the a p p e al. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by th e District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court's order. See Third Circuit I.O .P . 10.6.