# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 13 80

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Nor lyn Sta nl ey

Nels on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Ja m es Stu art , She rif

f Ano ka Co un ty; Doct or

Jo hn Loes , Ano ka Co un ty Jail Doct or

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Octo be r 21 , 20 15 Fi le d: Nov em

be r 9, 2 01 5 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, COLLOTO N, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.Mi nne sot a inm at e N or lyn St an le y Nels on ap pe al s fo ll owi ng th e di st rict co ur t’ s 1 ad ve rs e gr an t of su m

m ary jud gm en t in hi s 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n in whi ch he br ou gh t cl ai m s of de li be rat e in di ffer en ce to hi s se rio us m ed ic al ne ed s. He al so ch al le ng es th e d is tri ct co ur t’s d en ia l o f hi s re qu es t fo r ap po in te d c ou ns el

.

Upo n care fu l de no vo rev ie w, se e Alb ers on v. Norri s, 45 8 F.3d 76 2, 76 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w), we co nc lu de th at su mm a ry jud gm en t was pr op erl y gr an te d (1 ) as to de fen da nt Dr. Loe s, be cau se th e un reb ut te d ev id en ce sh ows th at he
pr ov id ed co ns is te n t an d co ns ti tu ti on al ly ad eq ua te tre at m en t fo r Nels on ’s m ig rai ne he ad ach es an d de te rio rat in g hi p, se e Ch ris ti an v. W ag ne r, 62 3 F.3 d 60 8, 61 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (p ret ria l de ta in ee al le gi ng d en ia l of m ed ic al care m us t es ta bl is h bo th th at

m ed ic al ne ed was ob

jecti ve ly se rio us , an d th at de fen da nt act ua ll y kn ew of
, bu t di sr eg ard ed it ); Meu ir v. Green Ct y

. Ja il Em ps ., 48 7 F

. 3 d 1 1 1 5 , 11 18 -1 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (m ere d iff

eren ce o f op in io n o n m ed ic al tre at m en t o r m at te rs req ui rin g e xp ert

m ed ic al jud gm en t no t co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n) ; an d (2 ) as to de fen da nt St ua rt , reg ard le ss whe th er he was su ed in bo th hi s in di vi du al an d of fic ia l cap aci ti es , be cau se Nels on fai le d to crea te a tri ab le is su e on whe th er an y co un ty em pl oyee was de li be rat el y in di ffer en t to hi s m ed ic al ne ed s, se e Gib so n v. W eb er, 43 3 F.3 d 64 2, 64 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (ap pe ll an t co ul d no t sh ow su m m ary jud gm en t was im

pr op er fo r pr is on ad m in is tra to rs si nc e he ha d no t sh own hi s care was co ns ti tution al ly de fi ci ent) ; Ru ss el l

v. Hen ne pi n Cn ty., 4 2 0 F

. 3 d 84 1, 84 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (b efo re m un ic ip al it y can be he ld li ab le
, th ere m

us t be un co ns ti tu ti on al co nd uc t by m un ic ip al em

pl oyee). Fi na ll y , th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g th e req ue st fo r ap po in te d

co un se l. See Ph il li ps v. J as pe r Ct y . Jai l, 4 37 F.3d 79 1, 7 94 -9 5 (8 th Cir . 20 06 ).

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Dav id S. Dot y , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of 1 Mi nn es ot a, ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on s o f t he Hon or ab le Ton y N. Leu ng , Uni te d S ta te s M ag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

. -2

-