Opinion ID: 2929088
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Fourteenth Amendment – Denial of Medical Care

Text: Hall finally argues the Appellees unconstitutionally denied Hall medical care when Leifeld failed to immediately send Hall to the hospital for his injured leg. Again, we disagree. Hall’s right to medical care arises under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Jackson v. Buckman, 756 F.3d 1060, 1065 (8th Cir. 2014). To analyze denial of medical care claims, however, “we apply the deliberateindifference standard that governs claims brought . . . under the Eighth Amendment.” Id. Whether an official was deliberately indifferent requires “both an objective and a subjective analysis.” Scott v. Benson, 742 F.3d 335, 339-40 (8th Cir. 2014). “Under the objective prong, [Hall] must establish that he suffered from an objectively serious medical need.” Jackson, 756 F.3d at 1065. “Under the subjective prong, [Hall] must show that an official actually knew of but deliberately disregarded his serious medical need.” Id. (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). “We have defined a serious medical need as one that has been diagnosed by a physician as requiring treatment, or one that is so obvious that even a layperson would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Camberos v. Branstad, 73 F.3d 174, 176 (8th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). According to the video footage and other evidence, Hall did not appear to need medical attention. Throughout the video footage, Hall walks without a noticeable limp and does not appear to favor either leg. There is also no evidence in the record showing harm to Hall by the delay. Thus, Hall failed to establish a due process violation.5 5 Hall also argued Ramsey County violated his constitutional rights by maintaining an unconstitutional policy or practice. But the general rule in this Circuit is that “[w]ithout a constitutional violation . . . there can be no [section] 1983 . . . municipal liability.” Sanders v. City of Minneapolis, 474 F.3d 523, 527 (8th Cir. -10-