1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Bobby E. Shepherd, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-2225

___________

Jimmie Fred Blackwell, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas

Larry Selig, Sheriff; Carl Lacey, *

Captain; Deputy Robinson; Deputy * [UNPUBLISHED]

Fisher; Deputy Terry; Deputy Navra; *

Todd Schultheiss, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: December 6, 2001

 Filed: December 26, 2001

___________

Before McMILLIAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jimmie Fred Blackwell appeals from the final judgment entered in the District

Court1

 for the Western District of Arkansas, dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
-2-

after an evidentiary hearing. Blackwell filed this action against employees at the

Garland County Detention Center, where he spent time as a pretrial detainee and as

a convicted prisoner. His allegations related to the treatment of his medical

condition, the use of excessive force, the conditions of his confinement, and the

alleged denial of due process in connection with a disciplinary action. He did not

timely request a jury trial. For reversal, he argues that he did not consent to proceed

before the magistrate judge who presided over the evidentiary hearing, and that the

district court erred in dismissing his action. For the reasons discussed below, we

affirm the judgment of the district court.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the magistrate judge was authorized to conduct the

evidentiary hearing without Blackwell’s consent. As to the contested dismissal, we

review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law

de novo, see Choate v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1370, 1373 & n.1 (8th Cir. 1993), and we

conclude that dismissal of each claim was appropriate. First, Blackwell did not show

defendant Carl Lacey failed to supervise the deputies (who are not defendants) who

allegedly denied Blackwell due process during a disciplinary action. See Sanders v.

Sears, Roebuck & Co., 984 F.2d 972, 975-76 (8th Cir. 1993). Second, Blackwell’s

allegations against the named defendants amounted to a mere disagreement with the

prescribed and given course of medical treatment. See Vaughan v. Lacey, 49 F.3d

1344, 1346 (8th Cir. 1995) (disagreement as to proper course of treatment is not

actionable under Eighth Amendment). Third, crediting an inmate witness’s testimony

that he offered Blackwell his bunk but Blackwell refused, and Lacey’s testimony that

the jail did not oppose bunk-switching, we agree with the district court that Blackwell

voluntarily slept on a mattress on the floor of his assigned cell. In any event,

Blackwell’s sleeping on the floor on a four-inch thick mattress for five nights did not

amount to an unconstitutional condition of confinement, particularly when Blackwell

failed to show defendants knew he suffered pain whenever he raised his mattress to

allow his cell door to be opened (his chief complaint as to this sleeping arrangement).

See Williams v. Delo, 49 F.3d 442, 444-46 (8th Cir. 1995) (placement in strip cell
-3-

without water or mattress for four days did not violate Eighth Amendment; prison

officials must know of and disregard excessive risk to inmate’s health or safety).

Last, based on defendants’ testimony at the evidentiary hearing--which the district

court found more credible than Blackwell’s--we agree that the force used to transport

Blackwell to Lacey’s office did not amount to punishment. See Graham v. Connor,

490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10 (1989).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

A true copy.

Attest:

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