William Thompson v. Michael Young

1 F. App'x 564
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 8, 2001
Docket00-1485
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1 F. App'x 564 (William Thompson v. Michael Young) 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
William Thompson v. Michael Young, 1 F. App'x 564 (8th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

William Thompson, an Arkansas inmate, appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which he claimed that Dr. Michael Young was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition. After de novo review, see Weaver v. Clarke, 45 F.3d 1253, 1255 (8th Cir.1995), we agree with the district court Thompson failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim against the prison doctor. The Eighth Amendment does not prohibit a prison doctor from exercising his own independent medical judgment, and inmates do not have a constitutional right to any particular type of treatment. See Long v. Nix, 86 F.3d 761, 765 (8th Cir.1996).

*565 Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

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

Related

Weaver v. Clarke
45 F.3d 1253 (Eighth Circuit, 1995)
Long v. Nix
86 F.3d 761 (Eighth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 F. App'x 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-thompson-v-michael-young-ca8-2001.