Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01048/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01048-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Theodore McMillian died January 18, 2006. This opinion is

being filed by the remaining judges of the panel pursuant to 8th Cir. Rule 47E.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1048

___________

Crescenciano Pena, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Dr. David Eduardy; Warden, FMC *

Rochester, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: January 6, 2006

Filed: January 20, 2006

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN1

, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 05-1048 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/20/2006 Entry ID: 1999445
2

The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Susan

Richard Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

3

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.

388 (1971). 

-2-

Federal inmate Crescenciano Pena appeals the district court’s2

 adverse grant of

summary judgment in his Bivens3

 action. We review de novo the grant of summary

judgment, drawing all inferences in favor of Pena. See Jolly v. Knudsen, 205 F.3d

1094, 1096 (8th Cir. 2000). Having done so, we agree with the district court that the

summary judgment record revealed no Eighth Amendment violation. See Pool v.

Sebastian County, Ark., 418 F.3d 934, 942 (8th Cir. 2005) (prisoner must show more

than even gross negligence, and mere disagreement with treatment decisions does not

rise to level of constitutional violation); Long v Nix, 86 F.3d 761, 765 (8th Cir. 1996)

(inmates do not have constitutional right to particular type of treatment; nothing in

Eighth Amendment prevents prison physicians from exercising independent medical

judgment).

We decline to consider whether the district court properly determined that

Warden Constance Reece was not properly served, because Pena has not challenged

that determination. See Primary Care Investors, Seven, Inc. v. PHP Healthcare Corp.,

986 F.2d 1208, 1212 (8th Cir. 1993). We also decline to consider Pena’s newly raised

claim that he suffered substantive due process violations. See Stone v. Harry, 364

F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (claims not presented to district court may not be

advanced on appeal).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1048 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/20/2006 Entry ID: 1999445