### The Honorable Beverly R. Stites, United States Magistrat e 1 

### Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, to whom this case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ___________ No. 95-3713

___________ Guy C. Barnes, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. Gary Grimes; Jim Rush, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: October 25, 1996 Filed: October 31, 1996

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

___________
PER CURIAM.
Guy C. Ba rnes, formerly an inmate in the Sebastian County jail (the jail), app eals from the district court's judgment in favor of defendants 1 following a bench trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We affirm.

Barnes filed this section 1983 action against Gary Grimes, th e Sheriff of Sebastian County, and Jim Rush, the Deputy Jail Administrator. On August 23, 1994, B arnes was attacked with a broken-off broom handle by Scott Scanlon, a federal detainee, while housed in BB pod in the jail
. Depu tyJoseph Simpson intervened to stop the attack. Barnes allege d failure to protect, i n that Simpson did not intervene in a timely manner, inmates' access to

### -2-

cleaning supplies was not properly supervised, and Barnes should not have been housed with viol ent inmates or federal inmates. Barnes also alleged that defendants denied him medical care following the assault and failed to investigate and file charges against the attacker.

We conclu de that the district court was correct in determining that defend ants were not liable on Barnes's failure-to-protect claim. Se e Choate v. Lockhart , 7 F.3d 1370, 1373 (8th Cir. 1993) (findings of fac t revie wed for clear error; whether conduct violated Eighth Amendmen t reviewed de novo). Barnes admitted that he had had no prior problems with Scanlon, nor did he show any previous problems at the jail due to th e inmates' access to cl eaning supplies. Also, Barnes made no showing that defendants' classification system or housing arrangements created a pervasive risk of harm. See Farmer v. Brennan , 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1977, 197 9 (1994) (inmate must show that official knew of a nd disregarded substantial risk of serious harm) ; cf. Jensen v. Clarke , 94 F.3d 1191, 1198 (8th Cir. 1996) ( district court did not clearly err in finding inmates suffere d pervasive risk of har m by being randomly placed in double cells). Barnes showed no basis for holding Grimes or Rush liable for Simpson's allege d delay in responding. See Boyd v. Knox , 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 1995) (supervisor cannot be held liable on respondeat superior theory). In any event, the district court credited Simpson's testimony that he responded immediately when the attack occurred. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City , 470 U.S. 564, 575 (19 85) (credibility determination virtually never clear error).
In light of Rush's testimony that he saw no immediate need for care, the dist rict court did not err in finding that Barnes did not have an y obvious injuries. See Johnson v. Busby , 953 F.2 d 349, 351 (8th Cir. 1991) (per curiam) (medical need "serious" if obvious or diagnosed); Anderson , 470 U.S. at 575. Bar nes did not dispute that Rush left him in the charge of other jailers who provided medical

### -3-

treatment, and he did not prove that defendants refused any subsequen t reques ts for medical attention, or that he suffered any seriou s consequences from lack of treatment. See Beyerbach v. Sears , 49 F.3d 1324 , 1326 (8th Cir. 1995) (injury must be objectively serious; lack of treatmen t must have detrimental effect to satisfy objective component).
Finally, the district court correctl y found that defendants were not consti tutionallyliable for the failure to prosecute Scanlon for th e attack. As Barnes did not dispute Rush's testimony that Rush turned the inciden t over to the county criminal investigation office fo r invest igation, he did not show that defendants intentionally failed t o investigate the attack. See Chapman v. Musich , 726 F.2d 405, 407 (8t h Cir .) (in § 1983 action for failure to investigate, defendant's action s must be intentional), cert. denied , 469 U.S. 931 (1984).
The judgment is affirmed.
A true copy.

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