Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03745/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03745-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Correctional Medical Services
Appellee
Steven Crawford
Appellee
Mark Richard Still
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3745

___________

Mark Richard Still, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Steven Crawford, M.D.; Correctional *

Medical Services, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: November 3, 2005

Filed: November 8, 2005

___________

Before ARNOLD, SMITH, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to Missouri

inmate Mark Still’s medical needs, Mr. Still appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of

defendant Correctional Medical Services (CMS) and the grant of summary judgment

to physician Steven Crawford. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 04-3745 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2005 Entry ID: 1972544
-2-

Initially, we conclude that the district court appropriately dismissed CMS prior

to service and did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Still’s motions for

appointment of counsel. See Burke v. N.D. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043,

1044 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (corporation acting under color of state law may be

liable only if policy, custom, or action by those who represent official policy inflicts

injury actionable under § 1983); Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000)

(per curiam) (de novo review of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissals); Davis v.

Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review and relevant factors in

appointing counsel).

Upon de novo review, we also conclude the record shows conclusively that

Dr. Crawford was not deliberately indifferent to Mr. Still’s back pain, diabetes, or

liver condition. See Jolly v. Knudsen, 205 F.3d 1094, 1096 (8th Cir. 2000) (summary

judgment standard of review; Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim).

Each time Mr. Still complained of back pain, Dr. Crawford examined him and

prescribed ibuprofen or Tylenol; sometimes Dr. Crawford issued medical lay-ins, and

once a lifting restriction; and Dr. Crawford ordered that Mr. Still receive a bottom

bunk. When Mr. Still saw other physicians, their assessments and treatment were

consistent with Dr. Crawford’s, and blood test results were inconsistent with

Mr. Still’s complaints of severe joint inflammation. Cf. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S.

97, 107 (1976) (where medical personnel saw inmate 17 times in 3 months and

treated back strain with bed rest, muscle relaxants, and pain relievers, their failure to

x-ray inmate’s back or implement other diagnostic techniques or treatment was not

deliberate indifference). Although Mr. Still was scheduled to see a doctor about his

diabetes at chronic-care appointments every six months, he routinely saw

Dr. Crawford almost monthly. Dr. Crawford ordered blood work every six months;

frequently adjusted Mr. Still’s insulin due to his complaints and blood test results;

educated Mr. Still about proper nutrition; and ordered that Mr. Still’s blood sugars

be tested twice daily. See Jolly, 205 F.3d at 1096-97 (prison doctor was not

deliberately indifferent for increasing epilepsy medication dosage levels where he

Appellate Case: 04-3745 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2005 Entry ID: 1972544
-3-

saw prisoner on numerous occasions following dosage changes, attempted various

corrective actions, and referred prisoner to specialist). After Mr. Still tested positive

for hepatitis C, Dr. Crawford referred him to a specialist, who evaluated his need for

interferon testing, and Mr. Still received an immunization for hepatitis B. Last,

Mr. Still tested negative for hepatitis A, and his normal ferritin levels indicated he did

not have hemachromatosis. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3745 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/08/2005 Entry ID: 1972544