Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01192/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01192-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1192

___________

Kenneth L. Busch, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri.

Carl Morris; David Sipes; Larry *

Hagslag; Dale Kemna, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 6, 2004

Filed: July 26, 2004

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Busch, a Missouri inmate, appeals from the district court’s1

 adverse

grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which he alleged, inter

alia, that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his safety when they required him

to use a drill press to cut holes in wood thicker than 1 inch; that defendants were

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when they made him walk to the

Appellate Case: 04-1192 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2004 Entry ID: 1791850 
-2-

prison’s medical facility after he was injured; and that one defendant retaliated

against him for filing this action. 

Upon de novo review, see Anderson v. Larson, 327 F.3d 762, 767 (8th Cir.

2003), we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment to

defendants. First, even if defendants knew inmates could be injured from using wood

thicker than 1 inch in the drill press, this knowledge was insufficient to find

defendants were deliberately indifferent to a serious issue of workplace safety. See

Stephens v. Johnson, 83 F.3d 198, 201 (8th Cir. 1996); Warren v. Missouri , 995 F.2d

130, 131 (8th Cir. 1993). Second, even if Busch had to walk up many stairs before

receiving medical attention, he admitted that he suffered no adverse consequences

from this journey, and there is no evidence that his condition worsened because of the

delay. See Sherrer v. Stephens, 50 F.3d 496, 497 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (no

liability for delay in medical treatment unless defendant ignored acute or escalating

situation, or unless delay adversely affected prognosis). Third, the retaliation claim

failed because evidence in the record shows that Busch lost his furniture factory job,

some visitation privileges, and his housing assignment after he was found guilty of

a conduct violation. See Moore v. Plaster, 266 F.3d 928, 931 (8th Cir. 2001)

(prisoner’s claim of retaliatory discipline fails if conduct violation is supported by

some evidence that inmate actually committed rule violation), cert. denied, 535 U.S.

1037 (2002). We find no reversible error in the district court’s other rulings. 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a). 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1192 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2004 Entry ID: 1791850