### The Honorab le William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the rep ort and recommendations of the Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., Unite d States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. ___________ No. 95-3444

___________ Anthony Devose, * * Appellant, * * v. * * David Rittenhouse, CO-1, * Diagnostic Unit, Arkansas * Department of Correction; James * Appeal from the United States Massey, CO-1, Diagnostic Unit, * District Court for the Arkansas Department of * Eastern District of Arkansas. Correction; A. L. Lockhart, * [UNPUBLISHED] Arkansas Department of * Correction; Willis H. Sargent, * Warden, Diagnostic Unit, * Arkansas Department of * Correction; John Byus, Medical * Services Adm., * * Appellees, * * PHP Healthcare Corporation, * originally sued as PHP * Healthcare Services, * * Defendant. *

___________ Submitted: July 1, 1996 Filed: July 30, 1996

___________ Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Devose, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the distric t court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against various

1

### -2-

prison officials for violating his Eighth Amendment rights. Devose allege d that he was beaten with a broken broom handle by a fellow inmate, tha t defendant s made no effort to stop the attack, and that as a result h e suffered severe and permanent injuries. We affirm.
After an evidentiary hearing before a magistrate judge, the district court found Devose was beaten by another inmate with a metal-tipped mo p handle and defendant correctional officers were on duty, present, and aler t in De vose's barracks at the time. The court determined that defendan t officers had no warning of the attack and responded as quickly as possible ; their inability to prevent the harm to Devose resulted from the rapidity with which events too k place. The court further concluded that there was
no cl ear evidence that Devose's attacker presented a risk to Devose o f which defendants should have been aware.

As Devose did not request a jury trial, we review "the distric t
cou rt's findings of fact made after the court's de novo review of th e magistrate judge's fi ndings under the clearly erroneous standard," Choate
v. Lockhart , 7 F.3d 1370, 1373 n.1 (8th Cir. 1993), and its lega l conclusions de novo, see Whitmore v. Gaines , 24 F.3d 1032, 1033 (8th Cir. 1994). The district court did not clearly err in determining defendan t officers responded as quickly and as reasonably as they could. The court credited defendants' testimony that when the officers heard the first crac k of the mop handle they ran to help Devose while ordering his attacker to stop, and that they both yelled for help and received it without delay
. See Anderson v. City of Bessemer City , 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985) (tria l judge's finding based on decision to credit testimony virtually never clea r error). It was uncontroverted that the officers had no warning and that the attack was brief. In light of these findings, the district cour t
corre ctly concluded that defendants did not violate Devose's Eight h Amendment rights. Cf
. Farmer v. Brennan , 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1982-83 (1994) (prison officials aware of a substantial risk to inmate safety may be free

### -3-

from liability if they responded reasonably to r isk). Devose's contention that prison policy required the mop be secured proves nothing more tha n neglig ence, which is insufficient to support an Eighth Amendment claim
. See Falls v. Nesbitt , 966 F.2d 375, 377-78, 380 (8th Cir. 1992) (priso n official's violation of internal regulation does not give rise to Eighth Amendm ent claim unless inmate shows something more than inadvertence o r negligence).
We deny Devose's motion for appointment of counsel on appeal.
The district court's judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

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