Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03562/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03562-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Thomas J. Shields, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3562

___________

Ronald W. Brewer, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Leonard Graves; Caldwell; Magat; *

Sandra Caldwell; Kenneth Caldwell; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Alfonso F. Magat, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 4, 2005

Filed: October 10, 2005

___________

Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Iowa inmate Ronald Brewer brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for damages

against Warden Leonard Graves, Dr. Alfonso Magat, and Dr. Kenneth Caldwell (for

whom Sandra Caldwell was substituted), claiming Eighth Amendment violations

related to a serious eye injury he sustained on his prison job. The district court1

Appellate Case: 04-3562 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/10/2005 Entry ID: 1961138
-2-

granted summary judgment to defendants, and Mr. Brewer appeals. For the following

reasons, we conclude that summary judgment was proper.

The record does not show that the medical care Dr. Magat and Dr. Caldwell

provided Mr. Brewer was “‘so inappropriate as to evidence intentional

maltreatment.’” See Jolly v. Knudsen, 205 F.3d 1094, 1097 (8th Cir. 2000) (quoted

case omitted). It is undisputed that he received immediate care for his injury,

including an antibiotic ophthalmologic ointment, and ultimately received more

extensive treatment, including a cornea transplant, at the University of Iowa Hospitals

and Clinics (UIHC). That Mr. Brewer and his medical expert, Dr. Silberman,

disagree with the course and timing of this treatment does not create a genuine issue

of fact as to whether the doctors were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical

needs. See Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th Cir. 1997) (inmates have

no constitutional right to particular course of treatment, and doctors are free to use

their own medical judgment; mere negligence or medical malpractice is insufficient

to rise to constitutional violation). 

The doctors’ refusal to refer Mr. Brewer to UIHC immediately following his

injury does not create a genuine issue for trial, either. Mr. Brewer did not identify

any policy requiring such a transfer; and, in any event, the violation of a prison policy

does not in itself create section 1983 liability, see Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427,

430 (8th Cir. 1997). Nor was there delay in his treatment rising to the level of an

Eighth Amendment violation. Compare Hartsfield v. Colburn, 371 F.3d 454, 456-57

(8th Cir. 2004) (finding inmate created question of fact regarding prison officials’

deliberate indifference where evidence showed inmate complained of tooth pain on

October 20, but received no care until December 5), with Logan v. Clarke, 119 F.3d

647, 650 (8th Cir. 1997) (“Although the prison doctors may not have proceeded from

their initial diagnosis to their referral to a specialist as quickly as hindsight perhaps

allows us to think they should have, their actions were not deliberately indifferent.”).

Additionally, his expert’s opinion that earlier diagnosis and treatment “may have

Appellate Case: 04-3562 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/10/2005 Entry ID: 1961138
-3-

made a significant difference” does not constitute the requisite “verifying medical

evidence” showing the delay in referral caused his subsequent loss of vision. See

Dulany, 132 F.3d at 1241, 1243 (existence of alternate course of treatment that “may

or may not” have been successful did not raise inference of deliberate indifference).

As to Warden Graves, he cannot be liable based solely on his responsibility to

supervise the prison’s operation. See Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir.

1997). The absence of safety glasses at Mr. Brewer’s worksite constitutes at most

negligence, which cannot support a finding of deliberate indifference. See Stephens

v. Johnson, 83 F.3d 198, 200-01 (8th Cir. 1996) (failure to provide inmates with

steel-toed boots, protective eyewear, and other safety clothing at most established

negligence, rather than constitutional violation). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3562 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/10/2005 Entry ID: 1961138