Case ID: f-appx_126/html/0761-01.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

Scott SCANLON, Appellant, v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES; Roland Anderson, Regional Medical Director, CMS; Max Mobley, Deputy Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Dr. Robin Hickerson, Former ADC Psychiatrist; Dr. Solomon Mogbo, Former CMS Doctor, ADC; Lorne Ryan, Consult Doctor, Appellees.
    No. 04-2852.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 23, 2005.
    Decided: March 24, 2005.
    
      Scott Scanlon, Arkansas Department of Correction Diagnostic Unit, Pine Bluff, AR, pro se.
    J. Michael Lewis, Humphries Law Firm, Pine Bluff, AR, John Kevin Coker, Attorney General’s Office, Little Rock, AR, Michelle Banks Odum, J. Kendal Cook, Jeffrey L. Singleton, Mitchell & Williams, Little Rock, AR, for Appellees.
    Before MELLOY, MCMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In this interlocutory appeal, Arkansas prisoner Scott Scanlon contests the district court’s denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction. Scanlon claims that defendants are violating the Eighth Amendment through their deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, and requests transfer to “an appropriate medical facility.”

The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a preliminary injunction was not warranted in this case because Scanlon showed neither a threat of irreparable harm nor a probability of success on the merits. The record reflects that Scanlon is receiving ongoing medical care, and that he merely disagrees with defendant medical providers’ diagnoses and treatment. See Bandog, Inc. v. Jack’s Tire & Oil, Inc., 190 F.3d 924, 926 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (standard of review); Smith v. Marcantonio, 910 F.2d 500, 502 (8th Cir.1990) (mere disagreement with course of treatment does not state constitutional claim for deliberate indifference); Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir.1981) (en banc) (factors to consider in deciding whether to grant preliminary injunction).

Accordingly, we affirm. 
      
      . The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.