Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01473/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01473-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1473

___________

Tyrone Buckley, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Correctional Medical Services, Inc.; *

Unknown Hallazgo, Dr.; Gary * [UNPUBLISHED]

Campbell, Dr., *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 7, 2005

Filed: March 16, 2005

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Former Missouri inmate Tyrone Buckley appeals the district court’s1

 adverse

grant of summary judgment as to Correctional Medical Services, Inc. (CMS) in his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. In the lawsuit, Buckley claimed that CMS had been

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need in that recommended elbow

Appellate Case: 04-1473 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2005 Entry ID: 1879403 
2

Buckley named other defendants, but on appeal he is challenging the ruling

only as to CMS.

-2-

surgery had been repeatedly cancelled and delayed.2

 Following our de novo review,

we conclude that summary judgment as to CMS was proper. See Jolly v. Knudsen,

205 F.3d 1094, 1096 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review). 

While the twenty-month delay in scheduling the surgery once it was

recommended is troubling, the record shows that the delay was due to staff members’

misunderstanding and miscommunication concerning the scheduling process and

failure to follow through--not to a CMS policy or action, or to an action by those

representing CMS official policy. See Burke v. N.D. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 294

F.3d 1043, 1044 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (corporate liability under § 1983).

Further, although Buckley testified that he experienced some pain, he did not counter

the testimony of two CMS physicians that the surgery was elective and not a medical

emergency, and he admitted that no one had told him the delay was detrimental. See

Sherrer v. Stephens, 50 F.3d 496, 496-97 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (to show

deliberate indifference, plaintiff must submit evidence that, inter alia, defendants

ignored acute or escalating condition, given type of injury in his case).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1473 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2005 Entry ID: 1879403