Case Name: Harrison JOLLY, Appellant, v. R. BADGETT; Tony Gammon; Jim Moore; M.K. Rodriguez; Roy Osborne; Richard D. Davis; Huel Jenkins, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1998-05-19
Citations: 144 F.3d 573
Docket Number: No. 97-1588
Parties: Harrison JOLLY, Appellant, v. R. BADGETT; Tony Gammon; Jim Moore; M.K. Rodriguez; Roy Osborne; Richard D. Davis; Huel Jenkins, Appellees.
Judges: Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 144
Pages: 573–574

Head Matter:
Harrison JOLLY, Appellant, v. R. BADGETT; Tony Gammon; Jim Moore; M.K. Rodriguez; Roy Osborne; Richard D. Davis; Huel Jenkins, Appellees.
No. 97-1588.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted April 23, 1998.
Decided May 19, 1998.
Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied July 20, 1998.
Harrison Jolly, pro se.
Christine A. Alsop, Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, MO, argued, for Appellees.
Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
Judge McMillian, Judge Richard S. Arnold, and Judge Morris S. Arnold would grant the suggestion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Harrison Jolly, who is serving a prison term in a Missouri penitentiary, appeals the denial of his motion for appointed counsel and the adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. He claims that defendants were deliberately indifferent' to his serious medical needs by preventing him from leaving his cell to get water and take his prescribed anti-seizure medication at 4:00 a.m., the prescribed time. Rather, his guards refused to let him out of his cell to get water and take his medication before 6:00 a.m. We believe Jolly's evidence is sufficient to make a submissible ease on the issue of whether he had a serious medical need to take his medication at the prescribed time. We see no evidence, however, that any of the defendants knew that a mere two-hour delay in Jolly's taking his medicine would have any adverse effect. Because Jolly has failed to make a submissible case on the issue of deliberate indifference, and because we cannot say the district court abused its discretion in denying Jolly's motion for appointment of counsel, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.