COLEMAN v. SECC (2018)

[Unpublished]

Missouri inmate Alonzo Dwayne Coleman appeals the district court’s ¹ adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. On de novo review, we view the record in a light most favorable to Coleman, and draw all reasonable inferences in his favor. Under that standard, we agree with the district court that Coleman did not create a jury issue on whether the medical care Dr. Michael Hakala provided for his kidney and liver diseases and their related symptoms rose to the level of deliberate indifference, which requires a mental state akin to criminal recklessness. See Jackson v. Buckman, 756 F.3d 1060, 1065-66 (8th Cir. 2014).

The summary judgment record showed that Coleman’s chronic and incurable diseases were monitored through lab tests, an ultrasound, CT scans, and evaluations by specialists, and that he admitted the medication he received for his pain was effective. While, as the district court noted, the treatment provided was not a “model of medical care,” Coleman offered no verifying medical evidence that a delay in his receiving certain diagnostic tests, or in seeing a specialist, had a detrimental effect. See Laughlin v. Schriro, 430 F.3d 927, 929 (8th Cir. 2005). We also agree with the district court that because the record did not demonstrate a constitutional violation, there was no basis for § 1983 corporate liability against Corizon Medical Services, see Smith v. Insley’s, Inc., 499 F.3d 875, 880 (8th Cir. 2007), or for supervisory liability against Dr. Elizabeth Conley or Phyllis Stanley, see Meloy v. Bachmeier, 302 F.3d 845, 849 (8th Cir. 2002). We deny appellees’ motion to strike, and affirm the judgment.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

PER CURIAM.