Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03967/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03967-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3967

___________

Beck, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Sheryl Ramstad Hvass, as the current *

Commissioner of the Minnesota *

Department of Corrections; Nanette *

M. Schroeder, as the current Director *

of the Minnesota Department of * Appeal from the United States

Corrections Health Services Unit; * District Court for the District

Maureen Connor, as the current Health * of Minnesota.

Services Unit Director of the *

Minnesota Correctional Facility - * [UNPUBLISHED]

Stillwater; Dr. Worlali M. Nutakor, *

as a Physician employed by *

Correctional Medical Services *

Incorporated and subcontracted by the *

Minnesota Department of Corrections *

to provide inmates confined at the *

Minnesota Correctional Facility - *

Stillwater with medical care, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2005

Filed: December 9, 2005

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Appellate Case: 04-3967 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2005 Entry ID: 1984308
*

The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Franklin L.

Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

___________

PER CURIAM.

Minnesota inmate Beck appeals the district court’s*

 pre-service dismissal of

Beck's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, under to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and the denial of his

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. Having reviewed the record de novo,

we conclude dismissal was proper. See Beck v. LaFleur, 257 F.3d 764, 766 (8th Cir.

2001) (prisoner must allege defendant’s personal involvement or responsibility for

constitutional violations to state § 1983 claim); Frey v. City of Herculaneum, 44 F.3d

667, 672 (8th Cir. 1995) (civil rights plaintiff cannot pursue section 1983 claim

against officials under respondeat superior theory). We also conclude the district

court did not abuse its discretion in denying Beck’s Rule 60(b) motion, see Jones v.

United States, 255 F.3d 507, 511 (8th Cir. 2001) (Rule 60(b) authorizes relief in only

most exceptional circumstances), nor did the district court abuse its discretion when

it refused to disqualify the district judge and magistrate judge assigned to Beck’s

complaint, see In re Hale, 980 F.2d 1176, 1178 & n.6 (8th Cir. 1992) (standard of

review; judge is to take into consideration all circumstances both public and private

and determine if reasonable, uninvolved observer would question judge’s

impartiality). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Beck’s

motion for the appointment of counsel. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3967 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2005 Entry ID: 1984308