1

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge

for the Western District of Missouri, adopting the Report and

Recommendation of the Honorable William A. Knox, United States

Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

___________

No. 95-2702

___________

Robert Lee Young, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 * Appeal from the United States

Dora B. Schriro; Michael Groose; * District Court for the

Dr. Seiden; Dr. Manuel * Western District of Missouri.

Largaespada; Kristopher Reed, *

M.A. also known as Christopher * [UNPUBLISHED]

B. Reves, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: December 22, 1995

 Filed: January 10, 1996 ___________

Before WOLLMAN, MAGILL, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Lee Young appeals from the district court's1 grant of

summary judgment to defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We

affirm. 

Young, an inmate at Jefferson City Correctional Center,

alleged that defendant prison officials and medical personnel

denied him medical care and engaged in medical malpractice.

Specifically, Young alleged that he had constant head and neck
-2-

pain; that a doctor at the Fulton Diagnostic Center had indicated

Young would "end up permanently hunched back" without proper

medical care; that defendants knew of his condition and that it was

worsening; and that defendants failed to x-ray his head for

internal damage, hospitalize him, and/or send him to a specialist.

With his complaint, Young submitted documents showing that in

August and September 1994 he repeatedly requested medical care and

a head x-ray for his complaints. 

The four served defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing

that Young did not show that he faced a risk to his health or that

he had a serious medical need requiring treatment beyond what he

had received. In support, defendants submitted Young's prison

medical records, which showed that between August 1992 and

September 1994 Young was x-rayed twice and that both x-rays were

normal; that medical staff had responded to each of Young's medical

service requests; and that Young had received forty-three

prescriptions from prison medical staff. In response to Young's

October 1993 complaints of high blood pressure, the records

indicate that the medical staff periodically checked Young's blood

pressure between November 1993 and January 1994. Defendants also

provided the affidavit of a physician who had reviewed Young's

medical records from the Fulton Diagnostic Center and noted that

they contained no reference to a "hunchback" condition or to a

potential for permanent back injury. 

The district court granted defendants summary judgment,

concluding that Young had produced no evidence to show that he was

denied medical treatment and that Young's contention that he should

have been x-rayed was mere disagreement with medical personnel and

not actionable under section 1983.

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de

novo, using the same standards as the district court. Beyerbach v.

Sears, 49 F.3d 1324, 1325 (8th Cir. 1995). To succeed on his
-3-

Eighth Amendment claim, Young must prove that the defendants were

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). Because Young did not rebut

defendants' evidence that he received prompt, regular treatment for

his complaints and that he had no medical problems that were not

being treated, the district court properly granted summary

judgment. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 107. 

We note that Young's complaints concerning defendants' failure

to provide additional head x-rays or other specific treatment

amount to nothing more than mere disagreement with the course of

his medical treatment and as such do not state an Eighth Amendment

violation. See Smith v. Marcantonio, 910 F.2d 500, 502 (8th Cir.

1990) (no Eighth Amendment violation for denial of prisoner's

requests to remain in hospital and receive more medication). Young

offered no evidence that the course of treatment he was provided

"so deviated from professional standards that it amounted to

deliberate indifference in violation of his eighth amendment right

to be free from cruel and unusual punishment." Smith v. Jenkins,

919 F.2d 90, 93 (8th Cir. 1990). 

 

Finally, we deny Young's motion for appointment of counsel on

appeal.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

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