Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01585/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01585-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1585

___________

James Stallings, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Gary Kempker; Lois Spencer; Nancy * [UNPUBLISHED]

Schierding; Gary Campbell; Michael *

Duffy; Mehdi Zarabi; Debbie Schartz; *

Steven E. Moore; Lea Pemberton; *

Deborah Sobotka, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 31, 2004

Filed: September 15, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate James Stallings appeals from the district court’s1

 adverse grant

of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. In his lawsuit, Stallings sought

damages and declaratory and injunctive relief from various prison officials, as well

Appellate Case: 04-1585 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2004 Entry ID: 1811264 
-2-

as administrators and medical personnel from Correctional Medical Services (CMS),

claiming that they violated the Eighth Amendment by denying him necessary care for

his Hepatitis C. 

We grant Stallings leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, assess the

balance of the filing fee, and leave the collection details to the district court. See

Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484-85 (8th Cir. 1997) (per curiam). As to the

merits, we agree with the district court that the undisputed evidence showed that

Stallings’s claims against the CMS medical defendants constituted merely a

disagreement with the course of treatment. See Jolly v. Knudsen, 205 F.3d 1094,

1096 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review; mere disagreement with treatment decisions

does not amount to constitutional violation). Absent a constitutional violation,

Stallings’s related claims against the prison officials and the CMS administrators

necessarily failed as well. See Williams v. Davis, 200 F.3d 538, 538-39 (8th Cir.

2000) (per curiam). Further, we find no abuse of discretion in the Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(b) dismissal of Dr. Mehdi Zarabi, see Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d

801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986); in the denial of Stallings’s motions to compel, see Lee

v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 875

(1993); or in the denial of his requests for appointment of counsel, see Abdullah v.

Gunter, 949 F.2d 1032, 1035 (8th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 930 (1992.) 

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We note,

however, that the district court judgment mistakenly reflects that the case was

dismissed for failure to state a claim and that the dismissal constitutes a “strike” under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Because the district court resolved the case through summary

judgment, the dismissal does not constitute a “strike,” and we modify the judgment

accordingly. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1585 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/15/2004 Entry ID: 1811264