United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-1393EA

_____________ Harold Bryan, * * Appellant, * * v. * * * Roger V. Endell, Former Director, * Individually and in Official Capacity, * Arkansas Department of Correction; * Willis H. Sargent, Warden, Diagnostic * On Appeal from the Unit, Individually and in Official * United States District Court Capacity, Arkansas Department of * for the Eastern District Correction; John Byus, Individually and * of Arkansas. in his Official Capacity as Medical * Services Administrator of the Arkansas * [To Be Published.] Department of Correction; Sandy * Clements, Individually and in Official * Capacity as Infirmary Supervisor for * PHP Healthcare Corporation; * H.B. Bailey, Individually and in * Official Capacity as X-ray Technician * for PHP Healthcare Corporation; and * Donna Taylor, Nurse, Individually and * in Official Capacity as Practicing Nurse * for PHP Healthcare Corporation, * * Appellees. *

___________The Hon. Richard S. Arnold stepped down as Chief Judge of the United States 1 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circ uit at the close of business on April 17, 1998. He has been succeeded by the Hon. Pasco M. Bowman II. The Hon. John F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Easter n 2 District of Arkansas. -2- Submitted: April 14, 1998 Filed: April 23, 1998

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, LAY and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. 1

___________ PER CURIAM.

This is an action under

42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction. The claim is that the defendants were deliberatel y indifferent

to a serious medical need of the plaintiff, to his damage, thereby violating the Eighth Amendment, as made appl icable to the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The parties consented to disposition by a magist rate judge, and the pl aintiff waived his right to trial by jury. The case was tried, and the judge 2 announced his findings of fact and conclusion of law from the bench the next day.
We ap plaud this practice. Many cases, especially those in which the trial ha s been short, can be best disp osed of in this way. The witnesses and events are fresh in the judge's mind, a

nd the parties and their lawyers usually prefer a prompt disposition to a more elaborate opinion which would require some days or weeks to prepare.-3-

On appeal, of course , we review the findings of fact of the District Court under the clearly erroneous standard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Estate of Davis by Ostenfeld v. Delo , 115 F.3d 1388, 1393 (8th Cir. 1997). There is no doubt that the plaintiff had a serious medic al need. His hand had been broken. There is also no doubt that th e medical care given him left something to be desired. There was some delay in treating the hand properly, and this delay has apparently made surgery impractical. But even if the treatment was inadequate, and even if the inadequacy would have amounted to negligence in a state-lawtort case claiming medical malpractice, more must be shown to establish a constitutional violation. There must be actual knowledge of the risk of harm, fol lowed by deliberate inaction amounting to callousness. See Farmer v

. Brenna n , 511 U.S. 825, 835-37 (1994); Choate v. Lockhart , 7 F.3d 1370, 1374 (8th Cir. 1993). In the present case the magistrate judge carefully considered the evidence with respect to each of the defendants w ho were still in the case at the time of trial. In ea chinstance, the judge found that the defendants did not possess the necessary subjec tive mental state. No purpose would be served by detailing the facts. Th e judgment is
Affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.