1

The HONORABLE JOHN A. JARVEY, United States Magistrate Judge

for the Northern District of Iowa, to whom the case was referred

for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(c).

___________

No. 96-1125

___________

Harry John Casbohm, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 *

John A. Thalacker, sued as * Appeal from the United States

John Thalacker Warden to Iowa * District Court for the

State Mens Reformatory; Jerome * Northern District of Iowa.

Manternach, sued as Gerald *

Manternacht Treatment Director * [UNPUBLISHED]

ISMR; Gerald Connolly, sued as *

Jerry Connolly Director Medical *

Services ISMR; Curtis Mayo, *

sued as Lt. Mayo LUD Supervisor *

ISMR; Thomas Conley, Corr. *

Counselor, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: December 6, 1996

 Filed: December 17, 1996

___________

Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Harry John Casbohm appeals the district court's1 judgment for

defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We affirm.

In June 1994, Casbohm, while an inmate at the Iowa State Men's
-2-

Reformatory (ISMR) at Anamosa, filed this action against ISMR

officials. He claimed they were deliberately indifferent to his

asthma-related requests for a cell assignment with a non-smoking

cellmate or a transfer to a facility with a restrictive smoking

policy. Following a bench trial, the court concluded Casbohm's

deliberate-indifference claim failed, based on the following

findings of fact: Casbohm began discussing his asthma problem and

placement requests with defendants in 1994; as a result of those

contacts, it was ordered that Casbohm be celled with nonsmokers;

there was no showing that his condition was such that he could have

no exposure whatsoever to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS);

Casbohm's asthma was treated consistently and appropriately; and

there was no objective medical evidence showing that Casbohm needed

a transfer out of the institution to accommodate his asthma

condition.

To prove an Eighth Amendment violation, Casbohm had to show

that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious

medical needs--that defendants acted wantonly toward his needs.

Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 302-03 (1991); Givens v. Jones, 900

F.2d 1229, 1232 (8th Cir. 1990). Based on the evidence presented

at trial, we conclude the district court did not clearly err in its

findings of fact; and reviewing de novo, we conclude Casbohm did

not prove defendants acted wantonly or with deliberate

indifference. See Choate v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1370, 1373 (8th Cir.

1993) (standard of review). Casbohm does not dispute that he

received adequate treatment for his asthma, or that prison

officials celled him solely with nonsmokers once the medical staff

so directed. Cf. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05 (1976)

(deliberate indifference may include intentional interference with

treatment that has been prescribed); Weaver v. Clarke, 45 F.3d

1253, 1256 (8th Cir. 1995) (concluding complaint alleged deliberate

indifference where prison officials were repeatedly unresponsive to

inmate's requests to enforce smoking ban in his cell). The medical

evidence showed that Casbohm's asthma remained stable and was not
-3-

significantly exacerbated by secondhand smoke. Thus, Casbohm

failed to show that transfer to a smoke-free institution was

medically necessary. See Davis v. Hall, 992 F.2d 151, 153 (8th

Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (displeasure with medical judgment or

disagreement with course of medical treatment is not actionable).

Moreover, the evidence did not prove a claim of deliberate

indifference to future health. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S.

25, 35-37 (1993).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

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