Dennis Russell v. Willis Sargent, (8th Cir. 1998)
Linked as:
Text
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-4060
Dennis Russell, Appellant, v. Willis Sargent, Warden, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellee.
Submitted: May 28, 1998
Filed: June 1, 1998
Before BOWMAN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
1Dennis Russell appeals from the district court&s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Willis Sargent, who, during the pertinent time period, was
warden at the Arkansas Department of Correction&s Jefferson County Jail/Correctional Facility. Mr. Russell alleged he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by being denied medical treatment for his painful arthritis and that Warden Sargent was responsible for this constitutional violation.
Following an evidentiary hearing before the magistrate judge, see Johnson v. Bi- State Justice Ctr., 12 F.3d 133, 135 (8th Cir. 1993), the district court conducted a de novo review of the record and adopted the magistrate judge&s recommendation that Mr. Russell&s claim against Warden Sargent be dismissed. We conclude the district court&s judgment was correct because Mr. Russell offered no evidence that Warden Sargent was aware by February 1, 1995 (the date of Russell&s complaint) that Russell was being denied medical care or otherwise mistreated. See Choate v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1370, 1376 (8th Cir. 1993) (supervisor may be liable under § 1983 for Eighth Amendment violation only when supervisor is personally involved or where supervisor&s corrective inaction amounts to deliberate indifference toward or tacit authorization of violation).
Mr. Russell complains that the district court incorrectly stated that he had filed no objections to the magistrate judge&s recommendation. Even assuming Mr. Russell&s objections were timely, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), we conclude that any error in the district court&s failure to review them was harmless because the court stated it conducted a de novo review of the record, including the testimony and exhibits. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1); cf. Sumlin v. United States, 46 F.3d 48, 49 (8th Cir.1995) (per curiam).
Finally, we conclude the magistrate did not abuse his discretion in denying Russell&s motion for appointment of counsel. See Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.
[UNPUBLISHED]
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[1] The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable John F. Forster, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - Ricky Davis, Appellant, v. Helen Scott; Tom Villmer; James Purkett; Ian Wallace, Appellees., 94 F.3d 444 (8th Cir. 1996)
- US Code - Title 28: Judiciary and Judicial Procedure - 28 USC 636 - Sec. 636. Jurisdiction, powers, and temporary assignment
- US Code - Title 42: The Public Health and Welfare - 42 USC 1983 - Sec. 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - Freddy Wayne Choate, Appellant, v. A.L. Lockhart; R.H. Smith; Dale Keith; Bob Mccool; Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellees. Freddy Wayne Choate, Appellee, v. A.L. Lockhart; R.H. Smith; Dale Keith; Bob Mccool, Appellants, Arkansas Department of Correction, Defendant., 7 F.3d 1370 (8th Cir. 1993)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - Clifton Roger Johnson, Appellant, v. Bi-State Justice Center/Arkansas Dept. of Corrections; Warden Rick Hart; Major Larry Jordan; Lt. Rodney Johnson; Staff Officer Evelyn Allen; Dr. Jerry Stringfellow; Lt. Webb; Co1 Gilbert; Co1 Sullivan, Appellees., 12 F.3d 133 (8th Cir. 1993)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
