Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04056/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04056-0/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. 05-4056

___________

W. L. Smith, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Correctional Medical Services; Ashraf * Appeal from the United States

Diab, M.D., Correctional Medical * District Court for the

Services; Scott Boone, M.D., * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Correctional Medical Services *

(originally sued as Boone); Holli *

Banks-Giles, Correctional Medical * [UNPUBLISHED]

Services (originally sued as Holly Giles *

Banks); Gail Stephens, Correctional *

Medical Services (originally sued as *

Gail Stephenson); Millicent E. *

Young, M.D., Correctional Medical *

Services (originally sued as Milicent *

Young), *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: November 27, 2006

Filed: December 5, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 05-4056 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/05/2006 Entry ID: 2115220
1

The Honorable James M. Moody, 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-

W. L. Smith, an Arkansas prisoner, appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action following a pre-jury evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We conclude the denial of Smith’s motions for appointment of counsel was not

an abuse of discretion: the record (including the audio recording of the evidentiary

hearing) reveals that Smith adequately presented the facts and theories of liability for

his standard Eighth Amendment claim, and he received assistance from the magistrate

judge at the hearing. See Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir.

2006) (standard of review; relevant criteria for appointing counsel in civil case). Nor

was the denial of Smith’s motion to compel production of his medical records an

abuse of discretion, given that prison policy allowed Smith some access to his medical

records, and that relevant portions of the records were read aloud at the hearing. See

Toghiyany v. AmeriGas Propane, Inc., 309 F.3d 1088, 1093 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard

of review). 

Upon de novo review of the merits, see Randle v. Parker, 48 F.3d 301, 303 (8th

Cir. 1995) (standard of review), we agree with the district court that Smith failed to

make a jury-submissible case that defendants were deliberately indifferent to the

problems he suffered in his left ear. See Phillips, 437 F.3d at 795 (deliberateindifference standard). Based on the medical expert’s testimony, when Smith

presented with intermittent ear drainage, defendants provided typical care: topical

drops to treat an apparent external ear infection. See Logan v. Clarke, 119 F.3d 647,

649-50 (8th Cir. 1997) (prison doctors were not deliberately indifferent because they

treated prisoner on numerous occasions and offered sensible medication and

treatment); cf. Moore v. Duffy, 255 F.3d 543, 545 (8th Cir. 2001) (medical treatment

may so deviate from applicable standard of care as to evidence physician’s deliberate

indifference). Further, the expert testified that Smith’s actual ear problem--

Appellate Case: 05-4056 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/05/2006 Entry ID: 2115220
-3-

cholesteatoma--is a condition easily overlooked by primary care physicians, and that

his patients often presented with a lengthy history of ear drainage. See Smith v.

Clarke, 458 F.3d 720, 723-24 (8th Cir. 2006) (prison doctor’s failure to detect tumor

in inmate’s eye was not deliberate indifference where specialist attested that inmate

had received appropriate diagnostic care and treatment and that tumor was difficult

to detect in ordinary examination).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny Smith’s

request for preparation of a transcript at government expense. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4056 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/05/2006 Entry ID: 2115220