* The Hon. Joseph M. Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 05a0654n.06

Filed: August 3, 2005 04-3951 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ALLEN KRUPAR, JR., and SHARON KRUPAR, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. CITY OF PARMA HEIGHTS; Patrolman MOLNAR; Patrolman KUNKER; Sergeant GREEN; Patrolman DEILY; Sergeant SCHEURING; and Patrolman MEHLMAN, Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Before: SUHRHEINRICH and DAUGHT REY, Circuit Judges, and HOOD, *District Judge.
PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs Allen Krupar and his mother, Shar on Krupar, brought suit against the City of Parma Height s and six city police officers alleging deliberate indifference to Allen Krupar’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Krupar, who has se vere mental health problems, was arrested by the Parma Heights Police Department after assaulting his mother. When Krupar appeared in court the morning after his arres t, he turned and – in what the complain t describes as “an act of self-04-3951 Krupar v. City of Parma Heights

- 2 - mutilation” – ran into a wall head-first, caus ing permanent paralysis. The Krupars argue that the defendants show ed deliberate indifference to A llen Krupar’s mental health needs by failing to conduct a full-scale psychologi cal evaluation and failing to hospitalize him before his court appearance. The plaintiffs now appeal the district court’s determination, on summary judgment, that they failed to estab lish deliberate indifference on the part of the defendants. The Krupars further allege on appeal t hat the district court erred by staying discovery pending the resolution of the moti on for summary judgment and by dismissing, rather than remanding, the Krupars’ state claim.
The undisputed evidence in the record shows that the defendants acted appropriately to address Krupar’s needs by pl acing him on suicide watch at the jail and issuing him his psychiatric medication. Krupar had no clearly established constitutional right to immediate hospitalizati on for his mental health problem s. In the absence of proof of a clearly established constitutional right, the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion by staying discovery pending a ruling on the motion for summary judgment. In evaluating the threshold legal questions regarding qualified immunity, the district c ourt relied on facts that had been conceded by the plaintiffs. Furthermore, t he plaintiffs did not request furt her discovery, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), and ther e is no indication that additional discovery would have changed the outcome of the case.04-3951 Krupar v. City of Parma Heights

- 3 - There was likewise no abuse of discretion in the decision to dismiss the plaintiffs’ pendent state claims.
Having had the benefit of or al argument, and having studied the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint. Because the reasons wh y judgment should be ent ered for the defendants have been fully articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no us eful purpose. Acco rdingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the districtcourt upon the reasoning set outby that court in its memorandum opinion and order dated July 1, 2004.