Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01465/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01465-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1465

___________

Anthony James Moore, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Timothy Schuetzle,; Elaine Little; * District of North Dakota.

Robert Coad; Denise Senger; Kathleen *

Bachmeier, individually and in their * [UNPUBLISHED]

official capacities, *

*

Appellees, *

*

Barbara Gross, individually and in her *

official capacity, *

*

Defendant, *

*

Cordell Stromme; Mirna Stromme, *

individually and in their official *

capacities, *

*

Appellees, *

*

Justin Heidt; Dan Gleich, individually *

and in their official capacities, *

*

Defendants, *

*

Jeff Hostetter, Dr.; John Hagan, *

Dr., individually and in their official *

capacities, *

*

Appellees, *

Appellate Case: 05-1465 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/27/2006 Entry ID: 2025338
1

The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of North Dakota. 

-2-

Tugrul Kihtir, Dr., individually and in *

his official capacity, *

*

Defendant. *

___________

Submitted: March 23, 2006

Filed: March 27, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

North Dakota inmate Anthony James Moore appeals the district court’s1

 adverse

grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. Having conducted de

novo review of the record and considered the parties’ arguments, we find no basis for

reversing the district court’s well-reasoned opinion. See Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of

Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 991 (2004) (standard of

review). We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Moore’s

requests for an independent medical examination, see Ledford v. Sullivan, 105 F.3d

354, 358-59 (7th Cir. 1997) (given particular factual issues in case, determining

deliberate indifference was not so complicated that expert was required to establish

inmate’s case), and the appointment of a medical expert, cf. Sanden v. Mayo Clinic,

495 F.2d 221, 225 (8th Cir. 1974) (manner and conditions of court-ordered medical

examination, and designation of person to conduct examination, are vested in sound

discretion of district court). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Moore’s pending

motions. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1465 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/27/2006 Entry ID: 2025338