1

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1986

___________

Richard Louis Frenchman, Jr., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Herbert F. Saloum, M.D., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 29, 2007

Filed: May 31, 2007 

___________

Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

South Dakota inmate Richard Frenchman appeals the district court’s1

 adverse

grant of summary judgment on his Eighth Amendment claim brought pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Herbert Saloum, M.D., was deliberately indifferent to his

serious medical needs related to his heart condition and pacemaker. The district court

based its summary judgment decision on qualified immunity. Upon de novo review,

we affirm. See K.D. v. County of Crow Wing, 434 F.3d 1051, 1055 (8th Cir. 2006)

(standard of review).
-2-

We hold that the district court properly granted Dr. Saloum summary judgment

because the facts taken in the light most favorable to Frenchman did not establish an

Eighth Amendment violation. By Frenchman’s own admissions, he was given regular

“heart and pacemaker checkups” including electrocardiograph (EKG) tests;

Dr. Saloum routinely read his EKG results; and Dr. Saloum had him hospitalized

when a problem arose. While Frenchman raises immaterial disputes regarding dates

on which treatment was performed, and disagrees with the decision not to use a

different device to monitor his pacemaker, Dr. Saloum did not disregard his medical

needs. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) (“If no constitutional right

would have been violated were the allegations established, there is no necessity for

further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.”); Logan v. Clarke, 119 F.3d 647,

649 (8th Cir. 1997) (to establish Eighth Amendment violation by prison doctor,

plaintiff must show that doctor was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious

medical needs: that doctor “knew of, yet disregarded, an excessive risk to his

health”); Estate of Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th Cir. 1995) (to show

deliberate indifference, prisoner must show more than even gross negligence; mere

disagreement with treatment decisions does not rise to level of constitutional

violation).

We further hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Frenchman additional time to respond to Dr. Saloum’s summary judgment motion,

having already granted an extension once before. See Soliman v. Johanns, 412 F.3d

920, 921-22 (8th Cir. 2005) (notwithstanding plaintiff’s argument that he had suffered

extreme family hardship due to father’s unexpected death, district court did not abuse

its considerable discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file

summary judgment response where court was merely enforcing existing deadlines and

denied enlargement beyond extension already granted; even pro se litigants must

comply with court rules and directives), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 160 (2006).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________