Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02123/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02123-0/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. 06-2123

___________

Richard Delon Day, Jr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Kimberly Emery, Dental Assistant, *

North Central Unit, ADC; Cass Cherry, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Medical Administrator, North Central *

Unit, ADC, originally sued as Cash *

Cherry; Thomas Bailey, Dr., North *

Central Unit, ADC, originally sued as *

T. Bailey; Correctional Medical *

Services; John Does, (1-5), *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 15, 2007

Filed: June 20, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 06-2123 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/20/2007 Entry ID: 3321064
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-

Arkansas inmate Richard Delon Day, Jr., appeals the district court’s1

 order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action following an evidentiary hearing. Because

Day did not make a jury demand, we review the district court’s factual findings for

clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. See Choate v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1370,

1373 n.1 (8th Cir. 1993). Contrary to Day’s suggestions on appeal, the district court

was entitled to discount some of his testimony and accept the testimony of others, see

Estate of Davis v. Delo, 115 F.3d 1388, 1394 (8th Cir. 1997) (credibility

determinations are uniquely within fact finder’s province); and we conclude the court

did not err in rejecting Day’s deliberate-indifference and negligence claims, see

Alberson v. Norris, 458 F.3d 762, 765 (8th Cir. 2006) (to prevail on Eighth

Amendment claim, plaintiff must show more than gross negligence). We further

conclude that Day’s evidence fell short of establishing an equal protection violation,

see Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 984 (8th Cir. 2004) (to prevail on

equal protection claim, inmate had to show that he was treated differently than

similarly situated classes of inmates, and that differing treatment burdened one of his

fundamental rights and bore no rational relationship to legitimate penal interest), or

a breach of contract on the part of Correctional Medical Services. 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

________________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2123 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/20/2007 Entry ID: 3321064