Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02370/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02370-0/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. 04-2370

___________

Howard Lee Leach, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas * Eastern District of Arkansas

Department of Correction; Marshall *

Dale Reed, Warden, Cummins Unit, * [UNPUBLISHED]

ADC, *

*

Appellees, *

*

Correctional Medical Services, *

originally sued as CMS Infirmary *

Staff, *

*

Defendant, *

*

Young, Dr., Cummins Unit, *

ADC; Nelson, RNP, Cummins Unit, *

ADC, *

*

Appellees, *

*

Shaun Young, Director of *

Nursing, Cummins Unit, Arkansas *

Department of Correction, *

*

Defendant. *

___________

Appellate Case: 04-2370 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2006 Entry ID: 1998109
1

The Honorable Steven M. Reasoner, 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-

Submitted: May 31, 2005

Filed: January 18, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Howard Leach appeals from the final judgment entered in the

District Court1

 for the Eastern District of Arkansas following an evidentiary hearing

on Leach’s claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, and of

abdication of policy-making or oversight responsibilities, against prison medical staff

and supervisory defendants. See Leach v. Norris, 34 Fed. Appx. 510, 511 (8th Cir.

May 15, 2002) (unpublished per curiam). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Following careful review, we conclude the evidence established that, although

the prison medical staff defendants disagreed with Leach as to the appropriate course

of treatment for his breathing problems and a cyst on his side, none of the defendants

knew of and disregarded any of Leach’s objectively serious medical needs,

recommended a job assignment that was hazardous based on their conclusions about

Leach’s medical needs, or incurred liability as a result of the handling of Leach’s

grievances. See Choate v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1370, 1373 & n.1 (8th Cir. 1993)

(standard of review); Long v. Nix, 86 F.3d 761, 765 (8th Cir. 1996) (nothing in Eighth

Amendment prevents prison doctors from exercising independent medical judgment);

Camberos v. Branstad, 73 F.3d 174, 176 (8th Cir. 1995) (general responsibility for

supervising operations of prison is insufficient to establish personal involvement

required to support liability).

Appellate Case: 04-2370 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/18/2006 Entry ID: 1998109
-3-

Accordingly, we affirm. Leach’s pending motion is denied.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2370 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/18/2006 Entry ID: 1998109