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 Circuit 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 Eastern

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 deliberately

indifferent to a serious medical need of the plaintiff, to his damage, thereby violating

the Eighth Amendment, as made applicable to the states by the Due Process Clause of

the Fourteenth Amendment. The parties consented to disposition by a magistrate judge,

and the plaintiff waived his right to trial by jury. The case was tried, and the judge2

announced his findings of fact and conclusion of law from the bench the next day. 

We applaud this practice. Many cases, especially those in which the trial has

been short, can be best disposed of in this way. The witnesses and events are fresh in

the judge's mind, and 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 medical need. His hand had been broken. There is also no doubt that the

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-law tort case claiming medical malpractice, more must be shown

to establish a constitutional violation. There must be actual knowledge of the risk of

harm, followed by deliberate inaction amounting to callousness. See Farmer v.

Brennan, 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 who were still in the case at the time of trial. In

each instance, the judge found that the defendants did not possess the necessary

subjective mental state. No purpose would be served by detailing the facts. The

judgment is

Affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.