Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01763/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01763-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1763

___________

Harrison Jolly, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

ARA Health Services, Incorporated; * Eastern District of Missouri.

Correctional Medical Systems; Dr. *

Gary H. Campbell; Dr. Unknown * [UNPUBLISHED]

Hallazgo; Gary Kempker, Director; *

Larry C. Rowley, Superintendent; *

George A. Lombardi, Director of *

Adult Inst., *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: November 5, 2004

 Filed: November 16, 2004

___________

Before BYE, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Harrison Jolly appeals the district court’s1

 grant of summary

judgment to certain defendants, and its grant of dismissal to the remaining defendants,

Appellate Case: 04-1763 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/16/2004 Entry ID: 1834302 
2

Jolly originally named ARA Health Systems, Inc., and Correctional Medical

Systems, Inc., the former names for CMS. 

-2-

in Jolly’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Jolly sued Correctional Medical Services (CMS),2

two CMS physicians, and various prison officials, claiming deliberate indifference

to his serious medical needs. 

Based on our careful review of the record, we find that summary judgment was

properly granted to the physician defendants for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Jolly v. Knudsen, 205 F.3d 1094, 1096 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of

review; inmate must show more than even gross negligence, and mere disagreement

with treatment decisions does not rise to level of constitutional violation); Long v.

Nix, 86 F.3d 761, 765 (8th Cir. 1996) (prison officials do not violate Eighth

Amendment when, in exercising professional judgment, they refuse to implement

inmate’s requested course of treatment). 

Because there was no evidence of a CMS policy or custom relevant to Jolly’s

claims, summary judgment was also proper as to CMS, see Sanders v. Sears, Roebuck

& Co., 984 F.2d 972, 975-76 (8th Cir. 1993) (corporate liability under § 1983); and

the remaining prison-official defendants were properly dismissed because Jolly failed

to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether CMS or the physician

defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights, see Williams v. Davis, 200 F.3d

538, 539 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (absent constitutional violation, there is no

basis for supervisory liability under § 1983). Finally, we find no abuse of discretion

in the district court’s denial of Jolly’s request for appointed counsel. See Davis v.

Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review; listing factors).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1763 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/16/2004 Entry ID: 1834302