The na m ed de fen dan ts w er e no t s er ve d i n the di st r i ctc o ur t an d a r e no t par ti ci pat i ng * i n t h i s a p p e a l
. A fter e xa mining the ap pellant’s briefand the re cord, we have conclu ded that o ral argu ment is un n e c e ss ar y. Thus the app eal is submitted on the app ellant’s brief and the re cord. SeeF ED . R. A PP . P. 34( a) (2 ). 

# United States Court of App eals

For t h e S eve n t h C irc u it Ch i cag o , I l l i n o i s 6 0604 Subm i tte d M ay 11, 20 09 * D eci ded J une 12, 20 09 B efo re I LANA DI AM OND R OV NER, Ci r cu i tJudg e D IA N E P . W O O D , Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E S. SY K E S, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 08- 3884 J ER EMY T
. GR EENE, P laint if f-A ppell ant,

v . W IL L IA M P O L L A R D , et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ellees. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Cou r t f o r the Ea st ern Di st r i cto fW i sc o ns i n. N o. 08
- C-72 8 W i l l i am C. Gr i esba ch, Judg e .
O R D E R Jer em y G re en e, a W isc on sin st at e p ris on er , ap p ea ls fro m th e d ism iss al of h is c ivil ri ghts com pla i nt al l eging tha t the pri son denti st and otherst affvi ol ate d his Ei ghth A m en d m en t ri gh ts by refusin g to provid e a sp ecifi c d en tal proce d ure -- th e bon d ing of a t o o th
. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r td i s mi s s e d h i s c o mp l a i n tf o r f a i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m, a n d w e a ffi r m. 

### NO NPRE CE DE NT IAL D ISP OSIT ION Tobec ite d only

in ac c orda

nc ewith Fe d. R. App. P. 32.1N o. 08- 3884 Page 2

A c c or d in g t o h is c om p lain t, G re en e h ad a c on st an t a c h in g a n d se n sit ivit y in h is uppe r l eft ca ni ne t o o tha s wel l a s an o th erl i g ht l y c hi pped to o th
. T he s en si ti vi tywas the re sul t o fthe thi nning ofto oth enam el
. F i ve yea rs ea rl i er, Gree ne sa w a denti st w ho bo nd ed hi s to o thwi tha t o o th
- co l o r ed r es i n mat er i alt o s tr en g th enthe e na m el, a nd he want ed th e pri son denti st to do the sam e. At an appoi ntm ent with Dr. Donal d Jo nes, the pri son denti st, Dr. J ones to l d G re ene, “Io nl y fi l l te eth with decay orpull‘ em . ” Dr. J ones en co ur ag ed Gr ee ne t o s wi tc h t o a no th erty pe o ft o o th pas te , b utGr ee ne t o l d hi m tha t he had al re ady tr i ed that and i t di d not work
. He to l d D r. J ones thathi s t oo th had not de t e r i o r a t e d t o the p o i nttha ti tn e e de d t o b e p ul l e d o r fi l l e d, a nd a s k e d wh a th e s ho ul d d o for th e p ain
. D r. Jon es m er ely sh ru gg ed in re sp on se . G re en e c laim ed th at, l at er , th e p ain in hi s t oo th i ntensi fi ed so as to i nter fer e with hi s e ati ng and sl eepi ng habi ts. He al l ege d that th e to o thha s sinc e det er i o r at ed, a nd e xpr es se d a nxi ety tha t a ca vi tyc o ul d f o r m i n the fu tu re . G re en e c om p lain ed to offic ials bo th in h is in st itu tio n an d in t h e W isc on sin Dep ar tm ent o fCor re cti ons, al l o fwh om r ej ecte d his gr i evance . Gr ee ne fi l ed th i s ac ti o n un der4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 98 3 al l eg i ngtha t defen dan ts , i nc l udi ng D r. Jon es an d all th os e w h o re vie w ed th e g rie va n c es , w er e d elib er at ely ind iffer en t t o h is ne ed f o r the de nt alb o ndi ngpr o ce dur e. At sc r ee ni ngthe di st r i ctc o ur t di smi ss ed th e c om p lain t fo r failu re to st at e a cla im , see 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 9 1 5 A. T h e c o u r td i s mi s s e d a l l c l a i ms aga i nst the pri son offi ci al s, fi nd i ng tha t they l acke d the r equi re d m i nd setf ordel iber ate i nd i ffer ence. The o ffi ci al s be l i eve d G re ene’ s co nd i ti on had bee n addresse d by a m edi cal p rofessional. Th e cou rt also d ism issed allclai m s against Dr. J one s, not ing tha t G reen e’s dental pai n w as not a s er i ous m edi calneed and thatGree ne’ s di sag re em ent o verthe proper c ou rs e o f tre at m en t d id n otsu p p or t a cla im of d elib er at e in d iffer en c e. On app eal, Gree ne r enews his co ntenti on that Dr. J ones di spl aye d deliber ate i nd i ffer ence i n re fusi ng to pro vi de bondi ng se rv i ces. Gre ene a l so ass er ts that Dr. J ones co nv ey ed a ca va l i era tt i tu de to war ds hi s to o th ac he b y 1 ) o ffer i nghi m t r ea tmento pti o ns that did notsui tabl y a dd re ss hi s thi nning enam elpro bl em and 2) shr uggi ng i n re sponse to h is q u es tio n s a b ou t h is p ain
. H e a rg u es th atth es e a lleg at ion s s h ow a d isr eg ar d of h is ser i ous m edi calneed r atherthan a di sag re em ent about cour se oftr eat m ent. To e st ab l i shde l ibe r at e i ndi ffer en ce t o a s er i o us medi ca l ne ed i n v i o l at i o n o fthe Ei g hth Am en dm en t, a pl aint i ffmusts ho w tha t he s uffer ed f r o m a n o bj ec ti ve l y s er i o us m ed ica l co n d itio n, an d th ata st at e o fficia l su b j ec tiv ely d isr eg ar d ed th e ris k t o h is h ea lth
. B urks v. R aem is ch , 555 F.3d 59 2, 59 3-9 4 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ); D uc kwor t h v
. Ahm ad, 532 F. 3d 675, 67 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. The o ffi ci alm ust be aware off acts fro m wh i ch the i nfe re nce co uld be d ra w n th at a su b st an tia l risk of se riou s h ar m ex ist s, an d h e m u st d ra w th e in fer en c e. Far m e rv. Br e nna n , 511 U
. S. 825, 837 (1994 ); D uckw orth , 53 2 F .3d at67 9.N o. 08- 3884 Page 3

The dis tr i ct c ourtdi d not e rri n concl ud i ng tha t Gre ene f ai l ed to al l ege del iber ate i ndi ffer en ce t o a s er i o us medi ca l ne ed. We ha ve no s et tl ed, pr ec i se metr i c to a ss es s when a pla i nti ff’ s nee d i s s uffi ci entl y s er i ous, but our sta nd ar d contem pla tes a condi ti on that has be endi agno se d b y a do ct o r a s m an dat i ngt r ea tmento r o ne tha t i s so o bv i o us tha t ev ena lay p er so n w ou ld ea sily rec og n ize th e n ee d for a d oc to r’s at te n tio n . G reeno v. D a ley, 41 4 F.3 d 64 5, 65 3 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); G utierrez v. P eters , 11 1 F
. 3d 1364, 13 74 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97)
. W hen vi ew ed aga i nst thi s s tandard, Gree ne’ s o w n al l ega ti ons und er m i ne hi s cl ai m thathe f aces a su b st an tia l risk of se riou s h ar m . See E dw a rds v . Sny der, 478 F.3d 82 7, 83 0 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ). F o r i ns ta nc e, the o nl y s y m pto m s he a l l eg ed he de sc r ibe d t o Dr
. J o ne s wer e a co ns ta nt ac h in g in h is t oo th an d a se n sit ivit y t o h otan d co ld te m p er at u re s. T h es e s ym p to m s fa ll shor t o fa condi ti on s uch as too th decayo r gum i nfe cti on, wh i ch w e hav e r eco gni zed as se riou s b ec au se of th e s u b st an tia l risk s t o h ea lth if left u n tr ea te d
. Se eBoar d v
. Fa r nham , 39 4 F. 3d 469, 48 2- 83 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( ci ti ng ca ses )
. Gre ene’ s a l l ega ti ons ess enti al l y a m ount t o a perso nal pro gnos i s o fworse ni ng dentalpro bl em s o verti m e: “[ o] nce g ro und dow n f ar en o ug h [ th e to o th ] wi l l b e m o r e su sc ept ibl e to de ve l o p a c av i ty . ” Buts uchc o nj ec tu r e ab o ut the l i kel i hood o ffuture harm i s no t the so rto fdi agno si s that c an be sai d to m andate tr eat m ent o r ra i se i n the m i nd o fa l ay perso n the need f ora doctor ’ s a tte nti on. I t m ay have behoo ved the denti st to i nquir e furtherabo ut hi s pai n, but i fGree ne’ s co nd i ti on has i nd eed w or sened to the poi nt wh er e i t inter fer es w i th hi s e ati ng and sl eepi ng, he i s fre e t o re quest an o th era ppo i nt m en t. We ho pe th ata do ct o r woul d do mor e th ans hr uga t a pat i en t’ s pain, but as Gree ne di d not pre sent to hi m a ser i ous m edi calneed, he c annot prove a const i tuti onalvi ol ati on under a ny se t o ff acts . AFFI RM ED
.