Case ID: f-appx_709/html/0424-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Keith Lamar BLACKWELL Plaintiff-Appellant v. Charlie A. DOOLEY, County Executive; Garry W. Earls, Chief Operating Officer; Herbert Bernsen, Director, St. Louis County Justice Center; Gerald Kramer; Dolores Gunn; Unknown Rodnick, Head Doctor; Rita Hendrix, Nurse Manager; Philip Wenger; Janet Duwe; F. Rottnek; Andrew Moore Defendants-Appellees
    No. 16-4470
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: January 22, 2018
    Filed: January 25, 2018
    Keith Lamar Blackwell, Pro Se
    Priscilla F. Gunn, St. Louis County . Counselor’s Office, Michael Edward Hughes, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendant-Appellee Gerald Kramer
    Priscilla F. Gunn, St. Louis County Counselor’s Office, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendants-Appellees Dolores Gunn, Janet Duwe
    Weldon N. Johnson, Weldon N. Johnson, Attorney at Law, Florissant, MO, for Defendant-Appellee Philip Wenger
    
      Christine A. Vaporean, Teresa Michelle Young, Brown & James, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendant-Appellee F. Rottnek
    Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Keith Blackwell, a former pretrial detainee at the St. Louis County Justice Center, appeals an adverse decision by the district court granting summary judgment on his deliberate-indifference claims against a doctor and a pharmacist at the St. Louis County Justice Center.

Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that the district court’s decision was proper. See Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (“We review summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.”). The record established beyond genuine controversy that the medical treatment Blackwell received did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference and that Blackwell merely disagreed with the treatment he received. See Jackson v. Buckman, 756 F.3d 1060, 1065 (8th Cir. 2014) (explaining that, to prevail on a claim of deliberate indifference, a pretrial detainee must show more than even gross negligence); Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439, 449 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting that an inmate’s “mere difference of opinion over matters of expert medical judgment or a course of medical treatment fail[s] to rise to the level of a constitutional violation”). Moreover, Blackwell did not establish that he suffered any detrimental effect from the alleged delays in his medical treatment. See Jackson v. Riebold, 815 F.3d 1114, 1119-20 (8th Cir. 2016) (stating that an inmate must place verifying medical evidence in the record to establish the detrimental effect of a delay in medical treatment).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Blackwell’s pending motions as moot. 
      
      . The Honorable Noelle Collins, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pur-suantto 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
     
      
      . The dispositions of Blackwell’s other claims were not meaningfully challenged on appeal either in his original opening brief or in his amended opening brief. See Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 634 (8th Cir. 2007).