Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04044/USCOURTS-ca8-04-04044-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4044

___________

Donald Thorbes, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Ron Bahl, *

*

Appellee, *

*

McClellan; Redditt; Cedric Williams; * Appeal from the United States 

Potts; Meyer, * District Court for the Western

* District of Missouri.

Defendants, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

George Williams, Supervisor, Jackson *

County Detention Center, *

*

Appellee, *

*

Linda Hengel, Case Manager, Jackson *

County Detention Center, *

*

Defendant. *

___________

Submitted: May 5, 2006

Filed: May 11, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

Appellate Case: 04-4044 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2006 Entry ID: 2043597
*

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

-2-

PER CURIAM.

Donald Thorbes appeals the district court’s*

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in Thorbes's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking damages from Ron Bahl, the

Jackson County Detention Center (JCDC) Director, and from George Williams, the

Medical Services Unit Supervisor, based on events occurring while Thorbes was a

pretrial detainee at JCDC. Thorbes's claims arose from a delay in scheduling a followup appointment for an injury he suffered to his jaw in January 2000, and from the later

failure to administer prescribed medications from January 25-31 and from February

9-16, 2000. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm. See Hartsfield v.

Colburn, 371 F.3d 454, 456 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review). 

We agree with the district court that Thorbes’s fractured jaw was a serious

medical need, but the record would not allow a jury to conclude either Bahl or

Williams knowingly disregarded Thorbes’s need for a follow-up appointment within

two to three days of his initial emergency-room visit, or knowingly disregarded

Thorbes’s need for pain medication. See id. at 456-57 (elements of medical

deliberate-indifference claim involving pretrial detainee). 

As to the follow-up appointment, nothing in the summary judgment record

shows Bahl was involved in scheduling the appointment, and Williams’s scheduling

of the appointment within six days shows at most negligence: the initial x-ray of

Thorbes’s jaw was negative for a fracture or dislocation, and there was no evidence

Williams knew Thorbes was having swelling, pain, and difficulty eating in the interim.

See Gibson v. Weber, 433 F.3d 642, 646 (8th Cir. 2006) (showing required to

establish deliberate indifference is greater than showing of gross negligence).

Appellate Case: 04-4044 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2006 Entry ID: 2043597
-3-

In addition, Thorbes did not establish a trialworthy issue on whether Bahl or

Williams knew of Thorbes's problems in receiving medication during the periods at

issue. The record reveals the only time Bahl and Williams were told of a problem

with Thorbes’s medication, which occurred on February 15, they each took immediate

action. See Meloy v. Bachmeier, 302 F.3d 845, 849 (8th Cir. 2002) (supervisor is

liable for Eighth Amendment violation only if he is personally involved in violation

or his corrective inaction constitutes deliberate indifference; supervisor must know of

conduct and facilitate it, condone it, or turn blind eye to it). 

Likewise, the record does not support liability based on a theory of failure to

train or supervise, given the lack of evidence from which a jury could infer either Bahl

or Williams had notice their subordinates were delaying the administration of

Thorbes’s medication, see Otey v. Marshall, 121 F.3d 1150, 1155 (8th Cir. 1997); and

for the same reason, the record also does not present any trialworthy issues on

Thorbes’s negligent-supervision claim, see Cook v. Smith, 33 S.W.3d 548, 553 (Mo.

Ct. App. 2000) (plaintiff must show one who has breached duty of care to plaintiff

could reasonably have foreseen resulting injuries of type suffered by plaintiff). 

We affirm the district court. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-4044 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/11/2006 Entry ID: 2043597