___________ 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___________ Eastern District of Missouri Reginald S. Carr, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant, * * v. * * City of St. Louis, * * Defendant, * * Edward F. Tripp; Julian Boyd; * Alice Pollard; Dave Kovak; * Samuel Smith; Unknown Morrow, *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 o f the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granti ng defendant 1 St. Louis city jail officials summary judgment in these consolidated 4 2 U.S.C. § 1983 actions. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

In his amended complaint, Selvey alleged that two administrator s failed to respond to his resident requests compl aining about his inability to see a doctor and the medical care provided by Nurse Rosalyn Harvey; tha t a social services supervisor failed to ensure that detainee Ricky Bailey was tested for tuberculosis before placing him i n Selvey's cell tier; that Selvey had to wait once for forty-two days and once for three months to se e a doctor; and that medical personnel failed to take reasonable steps t o protect Selvey from contracting tuberculosis by failing to adequately test and screen Bailey for tuberculosis. Carr alleged that defendants knowingl y exposed him to tuberc ulosis when they placed an inmate (Bailey), infected with active tuberculosis in Carr's cell tier, and failed to provid e adequate follow-up care and treatment.

Defendants moved for summary judgment in both cases. Defendant s provided copies of Selvey's resident requests and relevant medical records , and argued the requests Selvey sent to the administrators were insufficien t to put the m on notice of any serious medical need. Medical record s indicated Harvey responded

### -3-

once within one day a nd 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 screen ing policy for tuberculosis and that such screening was conducte d regularly, in accordance with the policy. They provided evidence tha t Bailey's active tuberculosis was unknown at the time of his cell assignmen t 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 medica l personnel because there was sufficient evidence that regular screening was con ducted and the failure to detect Bailey's tuberculosis was, at most , evidence of negligence. In addition, the district court concluded th e claims that defendants deliberately denied or delayed medical treatmen t were not supported by the evidence, and any delay in treatment amounte d merely to negligence and did not create an acute or escalating situation. The district court concluded that Carr failed to allege any persona l involvement by any defendant named in the complaint. This court reviews a grant of summar y judgment de novo, applying the same stan dard 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 wa s app ropriate because Selvey and Carr failed to make a sufficient showin g that defendants acted with deliberate indifference to their serious medica l 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, Se lvey and Carr did not contradict defendants' evidence that the jail had a system for screening for tubercul osis, that defendants were unaware Bailey had active tuberculosis until so informed by the healt h depart ment, and that defendants' failure to detect and prevent thei r 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. 19 70, 1979-81 (1994) (inmate must show in failure-to-protect clai m officials were subjectively aware of and disregarded substantial risk of serious harm); Elliot t v. Byers , 975 F.2d 1375, 1376 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (prisoner must show pervasive risk of harm and failure of official s to respond reasonably to risk); see also Ervin v . Busby , 992 F.2d 147, 151 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (jail officials' neglige nce did not support § 1983 claim), cert. denied , 114 S. Ct. 220 (1993).
In additi on, the district court correctly concluded that Selvey did no t provide sufficient evidence that defendants deliberately delaye d medical treatment. Selvey did not assert that any delay in seeing a docto r harmed his medical si tuation. See Beyerbach v. Sears , 49 F.3d 1324, 1326 (8th Ci r. 1995) (record must establish detrimental effect of delay i n treatment).
The distr ict 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).
Final ly, we agree that Carr did not demonstrate how any of th e 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.