Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02852/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02852-0/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. 04-2852

___________

Scott Scanlon, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Correctional Medical Services; *

Roland Anderson, Regional *

Medical Director, CMS; Max *

Mobley, Deputy Director, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; Dr. Robin *

Hickerson, Former ADC Psychiatrist; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Dr. Solomon Mogbo, Former CMS *

Doctor, ADC; Lorne Ryan, Consult *

Doctor, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 23, 2005 

Filed: March 24, 2005 

___________

Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 04-2852 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2005 Entry ID: 1882945 
1

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.

-2-

In this interlocutory appeal, Arkansas prisoner Scott Scanlon contests the

district court’s1

 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 Bandag, 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.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2852 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/24/2005 Entry ID: 1882945