# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 44 70

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Keit h Lam ar Bl ack well

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Ch arl ie A. Doo le y , Cou nt y Exec ut iv e; Garry W . Earls , Chi ef Op erat in g Off ic er; Herb ert Bern se n, Di rect or , St. Lo ui s C ou nt y Ju st ic e Cen te r; Ge ral d Kra m er; Dol or es Gun n; Unk no wn Ro dn ic k, Hea d Do ct or ; Ri ta Hend rix , Nurs e Ma na ge r;

Ph il ip W en ge r; J an et Duwe; F. Ro tt ne k; And rew Mo or e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

22 , 20 18 Fi le d: Jan ua ry

25 , 20 18 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re GRUENDER, BOW MAN, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.In th is 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n, Keit h Bl ack well
, a fo rm er pr et ria l de ta in ee at

th e St

. Lou is Co un ty Ju st ic e Cen te r, ap pe al s an ad ve rs e de ci si on by th e di st ric t co ur t 1

gr an ti ng su m

m ary jud gm en t on hi s de li be rat e-i nd iff eren c e cl ai m s ag ai nst a doc tor an d

a p ha rm aci st at t he St. Lo ui s C ou nt y Ju st ic e Cen te r. 2

Upo n care fu l de no vo rev ie w, we co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on was
pr op er. Se e Bea ul ie u v. Lu de man , 69 0 F.3 d 10 17
, 10 24 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (“ W e rev ie w

su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , vi ewin g th e reco rd in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e

no n- m ov in g pa rty.”). The reco rd es ta b l i s h e d be y on d ge nu in e co nt ro ve rs y th at th e

m ed ic al tre at m en t Bl ack well rece iv ed di d no t ris e to th e le ve l of de li be rat e in di ffer en ce an d th at Bl ack well m erel y di sa gr eed wit h th e tre at m en t he rece iv ed

. Se e Ja cks on v. Buc kma n , 75 6 F.3 d 10 60
, 10 65 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at , to pr ev ai l

on a cl ai m of de li be rat e in di ffer en ce, a pre tri al de ta in ee m us t sh ow m or e th an ev en
gr os s ne gl ig en ce); Nel

so n v. Sh uf

fma n , 60 3 F.3 d 43 9, 44 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (n ot in g th at

an in m at e’s “ m ere di ffer en ce of op in io n ov er m at te rs of ex pe rt m ed ic al jud gm en t or

a co ur se of m ed ic al tre at m en t fai l[s ] to ris e to th e le ve l of a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n” ).
Mo reo ve r, Bl ack well di d no t es ta bl is h th at he su ffer ed an y de tri m en ta l effe ct fro m th e al le ge d de la y s in hi s m ed ic al tre at m en t. Se e Ja cks on v. Ri e b o l d
, 8 15 F.3 d 11 14
, 11 19 -2 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (s ta ti ng th at an in m at e m us t pl ace ve rif

y in g m ed ic al ev id en ce in th e rec or d t o e st ab li sh th e d et rimenta l ef fect of a de la y

in m ed ic al tre at m en t).

A c c o r d i n gl y , we affi rm

. Se e 8t h Ci r. R. 47 B. W e al so de ny Bl ack well ’s

pe nd in g m ot io ns as m oo t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

1 The Hon or ab le Noe ll e Co ll in s, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e East ern Dis tri ct of M is so ur i, t o wh om th e cas e was refe rred fo r fin al di sp os it io n b y co ns en t of th e p art ie s p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 63 6( c).

2 Th e di sp os it io ns of Bl ack well ’s ot he r cl ai m s were no t m ean in gf ul ly ch al le ng ed on ap pe al ei th er in hi s o rig in al op en in g b rie f or in hi s am en de d op en in g br ie f. Se e Ahl be rg

v. Ch ry sl er

Co rp

. , 48 1 F .3d 63 0, 6 34 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7)

.
-2

-