Case ID: f-appx_96/html/0371-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Barry HAVENER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bashir AMEJI, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 03-6090.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    April 28, 2004.
    Barry Havener, West Liberty, KY, pro se.
    Amy V. Barker, Office of General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Frankfort, KY, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: COLE and COOK, Circuit Judges; and SPIEGEL, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable S. Arthur Spiegel, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
    
   ORDER

Barry Havener, a Kentucky prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment against him. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Seeking monetary and injunctive relief. Havener sued Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (“EKCC”) physician Dr. Bashir Ameji: Kentucky Department of Corrections Commissioner (“KDOC”) Vertner Taylor: and KDOC Medical Director Dr. Richard Kimbler, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Havener claimed that the defendants denied him necessary medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. This timely appeal followed.

We review de novo a grant of summary judgment. Terry Barr Sales Agency, Inc. v. All-Lock Co., Inc., 96 F.3d 174, 178 (6th Cir.1996). Upon review, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendants. A gleaning of the record reveals no evidence of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 100, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). Because the magistrate judge and the district court articulated the reasons for dismissing Havener’s suit, a detailed per curiam opinion would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge and adopted by the district court. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.