DuBois v. Hanvey, 090517 FED8, 16-3955

Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Judge Panel:Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:Chad DuBois Plaintiff- Appellant v. Michael Joe Hanvey, Physician's Assistant, Mike Durfee State Prison, in his individual and official capacities; Dr. Melvin Wallinga, Chief Physician, Mike Durfee State Prison, in his individual and official capacities; Dr. Mary Carpenter, Employee of South Dakota Department of Health, in her individual and...
Case Date:September 05, 2017
Docket Nº:16-3955
 
FREE EXCERPT

Chad DuBois Plaintiff- Appellant

v.

Michael Joe Hanvey, Physician's Assistant, Mike Durfee State Prison, in his individual and official capacities; Dr. Melvin Wallinga, Chief Physician, Mike Durfee State Prison, in his individual and official capacities; Dr. Mary Carpenter, Employee of South Dakota Department of Health, in her individual and official capacities Defendants - Appellees

No. 16-3955

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

September 5, 2017

         Unpublished

          Submitted: August 29, 2017

         Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls

          Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

          PER CURIAM.

         In this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Chad DuBois appeals after the district court1 adversely granted summary judgment on his claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. He argues that the district court erred in granting defendants summary judgment, and abused its discretion in denying his motions for leave to amend his complaint, appointment of counsel, and discovery.

         Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment. See Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, viewing record in light most favorable to nonmovant); Vaughan v. Lacey, 49 F.3d 1344, 1346 (8th Cir. 1995) (disagreement over proper course of treatment is not actionable under Eighth Amendment). We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying DuBois's motion for leave to amend the complaint, because the proposed amendment would not have altered the analysis. See Kozlov v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 818 F.3d 380, 395 (8th Cir. 2016) (denial of motion to amend complaint is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Finally, we conclude that the district court...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP