___________

No. 95-3041

___________

Rodger B. Selvey, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

City of St. Louis, *

*

Defendant, *

*

Edward F. Tripp; Julian Boyd; *

Alice Pollard; Dave Kovak; *

Samuel Smith; Unknown Morrow, *

Dr.; Unknown Hervey; Unknown *

Townsend; Unknown Udo, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Appeals from the United States

No. 95-3045 District Court for the

___________ Eastern District of Missouri

Reginald S. Carr, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

City of St. Louis, *

*

Defendant, *

*

Edward F. Tripp; Julian Boyd; *

Alice Pollard; Dave Kovak; *

Samuel Smith; Unknown Morrow, *

Dr.; Unknown Hervey; Unknown *

Townsend; Unknown Udo, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: April 5, 1996

 Filed: April 24, 1996

___________
 The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States 1

District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-

____________

Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rodger B. Selvey and Reginald S. Carr appeal from a final order of

the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granting defendant 1

St. Louis city jail officials summary judgment in these consolidated 42

U.S.C. § 1983 actions. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. 

In his amended complaint, Selvey alleged that two administrators

failed to respond to his resident requests complaining about his inability

to see a doctor and the medical care provided by Nurse Rosalyn Harvey; that

a social services supervisor failed to ensure that detainee Ricky Bailey

was tested for tuberculosis before placing him in Selvey's cell tier; that

Selvey had to wait once for forty-two days and once for three months to see

a doctor; and that medical personnel failed to take reasonable steps to

protect Selvey from contracting tuberculosis by failing to adequately test

and screen Bailey for tuberculosis. Carr alleged that defendants knowingly

exposed him to tuberculosis when they placed an inmate (Bailey), infected

with active tuberculosis in Carr's cell tier, and failed to provide

adequate follow-up care and treatment. 

Defendants moved for summary judgment in both cases. Defendants

provided copies of Selvey's resident requests and relevant medical records,

and argued the requests Selvey sent to the administrators were insufficient

to put them on notice of any serious medical need. Medical records

indicated Harvey responded
-3-

once within one day and once within thirteen days to Selvey's request for

medical treatment, but that neither medical requests notified her of a

serious medical need. Defendants also provided evidence of the jail's

screening policy for tuberculosis and that such screening was conducted

regularly, in accordance with the policy. They provided evidence that

Bailey's active tuberculosis was unknown at the time of his cell assignment

and that, when it was discovered by the city health department, all jail

residents who had had contact with Bailey were tested and treated. 

The district court granted defendants summary judgment in both cases,

concluding that Selvey failed to support the subjective component of the

deliberate indifference test in his failure-to-screen claim against medical

personnel because there was sufficient evidence that regular screening was

conducted and the failure to detect Bailey's tuberculosis was, at most,

evidence of negligence. In addition, the district court concluded the

claims that defendants deliberately denied or delayed medical treatment

were not supported by the evidence, and any delay in treatment amounted

merely to negligence and did not create an acute or escalating situation.

The district court concluded that Carr failed to allege any personal

involvement by any defendant named in the complaint. 

This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the

same standard as the district court. Earnest v. Courtney, 64 F.3d 365,

366-67 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). 

 We conclude the district court's grant of summary judgment was

appropriate because Selvey and Carr failed to make a sufficient showing

that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to their serious medical

needs. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Smith v. Jenkins,

919 F.2d 90, 92 (8th Cir. 1990); see also Davis v. Hall, 992 F.2d 151, 153

(8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (deliberate indifference standard applies to

pretrial detainees). 
-4-

 First, Selvey and Carr did not contradict defendants' evidence that

the jail had a system for screening for tuberculosis, that defendants were

unaware Bailey had active tuberculosis until so informed by the health

department, and that defendants' failure to detect and prevent their

exposure to Bailey's tuberculosis amounted, at most, to negligence, which

is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Cf. Farmer v. Brennan, 114 S.

Ct. 1970, 1979-81 (1994) (inmate must show in failure-to-protect claim

officials were subjectively aware of and disregarded substantial risk of

serious harm); Elliott v. Byers, 975 F.2d 1375, 1376 (8th Cir. 1992) (per

curiam) (prisoner must show pervasive risk of harm and failure of officials

to respond reasonably to risk); see also Ervin v. Busby, 992 F.2d 147, 151

(8th Cir.) (per curiam) (jail officials' negligence did not support § 1983

claim), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 220 (1993). 

In addition, the district court correctly concluded that Selvey did

not provide sufficient evidence that defendants deliberately delayed

medical treatment. Selvey did not assert that any delay in seeing a doctor

harmed his medical situation. See Beyerbach v. Sears, 49 F.3d 1324, 1326

(8th Cir. 1995) (record must establish detrimental effect of delay in

treatment). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Selvey's

motions for appointment of counsel. See Abdullah v. Gunter, 949 F.2d 1032,

1035 (8th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 930 (1992). 

Finally, we agree that Carr did not demonstrate how any of the

defendants were personally involved in violating his constitutional rights.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
-5-

A true copy.

Attest:

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