Court Opinion

ID: 9384320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-03 16:00:42.835924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:52.742444
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                          For the Eighth Circuit
                      ___________________________

                              No. 22-2973
                      ___________________________

                             Colton J. Novascone

                     lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

                                        v.

 Nebraska Department of Correctional Services; Timothy Chamberlain, Medical
                             Director, N.D.C.S.

                          lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants

                       Daniel Danaher, P.A., N.D.C.S.

                     lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
                                    ____________

                  Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
                                ____________

                         Submitted: March 29, 2023
                            Filed: April 3, 2023
                              [Unpublished]
                              ____________

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.
       Colton Novascone appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary
judgment in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which he alleged that physician’s
assistant Daniel Danaher was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical need by
prescribing a penicillin-derived antibiotic despite his reported penicillin allergy.
Upon de novo review, we affirm. See Shipp v. Murphy, 9 F.4th 694, 702-03 (8th Cir.
2021) (standard of review; to establish deliberate indifference, plaintiff must show
that he suffered from objectively serious medical need, and that defendant knew of
and disregarded that need).

        We agree with the district court that Novascone did not establish that he had
an objectively serious medical need, see Kayser v. Caspari, 16 F.3d 280, 281 (8th Cir.
1994) (inmate’s self-diagnosis could not establish that he had medical condition, and
medical evidence did not support existence of condition; thus, inmate had not shown
serious medical need); nor did he establish that Danaher disregarded any such need,
see Barr v. Pearson, 909 F.3d 919, 922 (8th Cir. 2018) (defendants did not disregard
inmate’s serious medical need in making medication decision, as decision was
exercise of medical judgment and was based upon consideration of inmate’s
complaints); Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239-40 (8th Cir. 1997) (prison
doctors are free to exercise medical judgment; in face of medical records indicating
that treatment was provided and physician affidavits indicating that care provided was
adequate, inmate could not create question of fact merely by stating that she felt
treatment was inadequate).

      The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                     ______________________________

      1
      The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska.

                                         -2-