1

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

John E. Simko, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1868

___________

Chad DuBois, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Robert Dooley, Warden, Mike Durfee *

State Prison, in his official and * [UNPUBLISHED]

individual capacity; Mark Steil, in his *

official and individual capacity, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 7, 2008

Filed: May 13, 2008

___________

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

South Dakota inmate Chad DuBois appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant

of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming deliberate indifference

to his serious medical needs. For the following reasons, we affirm.
-2-

Deliberate indifference may be exhibited by prison medical personnel in

responding to prisoners’ needs or by prison officials in intentionally denying or

delaying access to care or interfering with prescribed treatment. See Meloy v.

Bachmeier, 302 F.3d 845, 849 (8th Cir. 2002). Here, DuBois did not show that

physician assistant Mark Steil provided him inappropriate treatment, or that DuBois

suffered any injury from a change in medication against his wishes. See Gibson v.

Weber, 433 F.3d 642, 646 (8th Cir. 2006) (deliberate-indifference claim based on

inadequate medical treatment requires proof that defendant knew of and disregarded

excessive risks to inmate’s health, and that injury in fact resulted); see also Meuir v.

Greene County Jail Employees, 487 F.3d 1115, 1118-19 (8th Cir. 2007) (inmate has

no constitutional right to particular course of treatment, and his mere disagreement

with medical treatment is not basis for § 1983 liability). Warden Robert Dooley

undisputedly lacked medical training, and his only involvement was to respond to

DuBois’s administrative remedy request. See Meloy, 302 F.3d at 849 (noting that

prison officials cannot substitute their judgment for medical professional’s prescribed

treatment); Tlamka v. Serrell, 244 F.3d 628, 635 (8th Cir. 2001) (supervisor liability

occurs for Eighth Amendment violation when supervisor is personally involved in

violation). We thus conclude that summary judgment was proper. See Popoalii v.

Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 499 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); Bloom v.

Metro Heart Group of St. Louis, Inc., 440 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (8th Cir. 2006)

(speculation and conjecture do not create genuine issue of material fact). 

We decline to consider arguments and issues DuBois did not raise in his initial

brief, and he cannot amend his complaint on appeal. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d

912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004); Mahaney v. Warren County, 206 F.3d 770, 771 n.2 (8th

Cir. 2000) (per curiam); Henry v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 451 F.2d 355, 356

(8th Cir. 1971) (per curiam). Rather, he may file another action to pursue any new

claims he believes he has. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and deny the pending motions. 

______________________________