Richard Delon Day Jr v. Correctional Medical

281 F. App'x 624
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJune 11, 2008
Docket06-2460
StatusUnpublished

This text of 281 F. App'x 624 (Richard Delon Day Jr v. Correctional Medical) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Richard Delon Day Jr v. Correctional Medical, 281 F. App'x 624 (8th Cir. 2008).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Richard Delon Day, Jr., appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action following an evidentiary hearing. Because Day did not make a jury demand, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. See Choate v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1370, 1373 & n. 1 (8th Cir.1993). Day claimed that Correctional Medical Services (CMS) and several of its employees denied him adequate medical care for his grass allergy and for a finger injury; that several Arkansas Department of Correction officials and employees (ADC defendants) violated his constitutional rights by denying him showers and a sick-call opportunity, denying him job reclassification, and conspiring to give him a disciplinary violation in retaliation for filing grievances; and that CMS breached its contract to provide adequate medical care for inmates.

We agree with the district court that the denial-of-medieal-eare claims failed. The record showed that on several occasions Day received treatment for his allergy complaints, including allergy medication, antibiotics, and a chest x-ray; and received treatment for his finger, including x-rays, pain medication, stretching exercises, and examinations by several doctors (one of whom spoke with a specialist, who advised against surgery). See Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th Cir.1997) (inmates have no constitutional right to particular course of treatment, and doctors are free to use their own medical judgment); Logan v. Clarke, 119 F.3d 647, 649-50 (8th Cir.1997) (prison doctors were not deliberately indifferent where they treated prisoner on numerous occasions and offered sensible medication and treatment). Further, Day failed to establish a breach of contract on the part of CMS.

We also agree with the district court that the claims against the ADC defendants failed. Day did not show that the refusal to let him return to the sick-call line after taking a shower amounted to a constitutional violation, when there was no indication why he had been in line for sick-call. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). The denial of a shower following contact with grass on one occasion was not of constitutional magnitude, especially as Day had access to a sink, washcloth, towel, and soap, see Crowley v. Hedgepeth, 109 F.3d 500, 502 (8th Cir.1997); and he did not show that he suffered harm from the policy of not allowing inmates on cell restriction to shower until 10:30 p.m., see Coleman v. Rahija, 114 F.3d 778, 784 (8th Cir.1997). Day’s retaliatory-discipline *626 claim failed because the discipline was attributable to an actual rule violation for refusing to perform his work assignment, which he did not show was beyond his strength, dangerous, or painful, see Goff v. Burton, 7 F.3d 734, 738 (8th Cir.1993); Choate, 7 F.3d at 1374; and he did not support his claim that he was denied a change in job classification based on retaliation, see Bass v. SBC Commc’ns, Inc., 418 F.3d 870, 872-73 (8th Cir.2005); Flittie v. Solem, 827 F.2d 276, 281 (8th Cir.1987) (per curiam).

We further agree that alleged failures to process Day’s grievances properly did not amount to constitutional violations in themselves, see Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam), and the record did not support that such failures resulted in the denial of adequate medical care.

Finally, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Day an independent medical exam, see Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296, 1304 (10th Cir.1997) (standard of review), and we deny the appellate motion for an independent medical exam.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Green v. Branson
108 F.3d 1296 (Tenth Circuit, 1997)
Flittie v. Solem
827 F.2d 276 (Eighth Circuit, 1987)
Buckley v. Barlow
997 F.2d 494 (Eighth Circuit, 1993)
Dulany v. Carnahan
132 F.3d 1234 (Eighth Circuit, 1997)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Choate v. Lockhart
7 F.3d 1370 (Eighth Circuit, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
281 F. App'x 624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-delon-day-jr-v-correctional-medical-ca8-2008.