Case ID: f-appx_326/html/0406-02.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

Kiara SMITH, Appellant, v. Larry NORRIS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Wendy Kelly, Deputy Director, ADC; James Gibson, Officer Administrator, ADC; Minnie Drayer, Hearing Officer, ADC; Justin Minor, Hearing Officer, ADC; Chris Coody, Hearing Officer, ADC; Sandra Stratton, CMS Administrator; Revonna Walker, Classification Officer, Varner Unit, ADC; D. Hampton, Officer, Varner Unit, ADC; Tammy Luckett, Grievance Officer, Varner Unit, ADC; Abesie Kelly, Mental Health, ADC; Slater, Mrs. Mental Health, ADC; Willie Hampton, Mental Health, ADC; Compton, Mr., Mental Health, ADC; Does, Jane/John, Mental Health, ADC; Brooks Parks, Assistant Warden, Varner Unit, ADC; Kim Luckett, Assistant Warden, Varner Unit, ADC; Grant Harris, Warden, Varner Unit, ADC; Thomas Rowland, Captain, Varner Super Max, ADC, Defendants, Steven Broughton, Dr., (Originally sued as a John Doe Defendant); Ravi Mehta, Dr., (Originally sued as John Doe Defendant), Appellees.
    No. 08-1369.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 15, 2009.
    Filed: June 8, 2009.
    Kiara Smith, Tucker, AR, pro se. Warden-Ar-Maximum, Arkansas Department of Correction, Tucker, AR, for Appellant.
    Christopher R. Hart, Attorney General’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants.
    Michelle Banks Odum, Humphries & Lewis, White Hall, AR, for Appellees.
    Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Kiara Smith appeals the district court’s adverse judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Following careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Smith’s claims following an evi-dentiary hearing, see Randle v. Parker, 48 F.3d 301, 303 (8th Cir.1995) (de novo review), or in denying Smith leave to amend his complaint to add state law claims of outrage and civil conspiracy, see In re Ktel Int’l, Inc. Sec. Litig., 300 F.3d 881, 899 (8th Cir.2002) (de novo review where denial of leave to amend is based on failure of amended complaint to state a claim). Because the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law medical malpractice claim, however, dismissal of that claim should have been without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Labickas v. Ark. State Univ., 78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, but we modify dismissal of the state law medical malpractice claim to be without prejudice. We also deny Smith’s pending motion. 
      
      . 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.