United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2268

___________

Earl Parker Wilson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Rick Toney, Warden, Varner Unit, *

ADC; Randall Manus, Warden, Varner * [UNPUBLISHED]

Unit, ADC; Grant Harris, Warden, *

Varner Unit, ADC; Bradberry, Warden, *

Varner Unit, ADC; John Does, *

Treatment Department, Varner Unit, *

ADC; Kay Brodnax, in her individual *

and Official Capacities; Correctional *

Medical Services, Inc.; Judy Nettles, in *

her individual and Official Capacities, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 2, 2008 

Filed: September 25, 2008 

___________

Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
1

The Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

2

To the extent any “Doe” defendants remain in this lawsuit, they were never

served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (providing for dismissal without prejudice as to

unserved defendants); Young v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 864 F.2d 81, 83 (8th Cir. 1988)

(per curiam) (where only unserved defendants remain in action, judgment is final

appealable order).

-2-

Former Arkansas inmate Earl Wilson appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant

of summary judgment to several Arkansas Department of Correction officials (ADC

defendants), and dismissal as to Correctional Medical Services (CMS) and its

employees Kay Brodnax and Judy Nettles (medical defendants) after a bench trial, in

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from his exposure to tuberculosis (TB).2

Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that

Wilson failed to establish that the ADC defendants--who had no medical expertise or

role in delivering medical care--knew of but ignored Wilson’s risk of exposure to TB,

and that liability cannot be based solely on defendants’ general responsibility to

oversee prison operations. See Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 499 (8th

Cir. 2008) (standard of review); Hartsfield v. Colburn, 371 F.3d 454, 457 (8th Cir.

2004) (to establish deliberate indifference, inmate must show he suffered from

objectively serious medical need that defendant knew of but ignored); Keeper v. King,

130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting that general responsibility for supervising

operations of prison is insufficient to establish personal involvement required to

support liability under § 1983). 

We also conclude the district court properly rejected Wilson’s claims against

medical defendants. See Weir v. Nix, 114 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of

review). Trial testimony established that neither individual defendant was directly

responsible for or personally involved in Wilson’s diagnosis or treatment, and that
-3-

CMS did not have responsibility for any TB policy Wilson had challenged; and

section 1983 does not allow for supervisory liability absent personal involvement or

actual knowledge. See Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir 1995) (when

supervisory liability under § 1983 attaches); Sanders v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 984

F.2d 972, 975-76 (8th Cir. 1993) (no § 1983 liability for corporation acting under

color of state law unless unconstitutional conduct resulted from corporation policy or

custom, and corporation cannot be held liable under § 1983 on theory of respondeat

superior); cf. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985) (because plaintiff

did not allege that one defendant was personally involved in or had direct

responsibility for incidents that injured him, his claims were not cognizable under

§ 1983).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________