Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
00-3457•United States v. Wade Allen Wheat
00-3457Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit28.12.2001
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-2005
___________
Gaither E. Nichols, *
*
Appellant, *
*
v. *
*
Jefferson County Jail; Jefferson *
County Sheriffs Department, *
*
Defendants, * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
Stephen D. Crawford, Dr., * Eastern District of Missouri.
*
Appellee, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Linda Unknown, Nurse; Unknown *
Holman, Sgt.; Unknown Stevens, Lt.; *
Unknown Young, Cpl.; Unknown *
Mercer, Cpl.; Unknown Lockwood, *
Cpl.; Unknown Gunnett, *
*
Defendants. *
___________
Submitted: December 7, 2001
Filed: December 14, 2001
___________
Before BOWMAN, BRIGHT, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
___________
-- 1 of 2 --
1 The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
-2-
PER CURIAM.
Gaither Eugene Nichols, a former pretrial detainee, appeals the district court’s 1
adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against jail doctor
Stephen D. Crawford. In his second amended complaint, Nichols claimed that during
his April to September 1998 detention, Crawford violated his constitutional rights by
not adequately responding to Nichols’s repeated complaints of shoulder pain. After
de novo review of the record, see Christopher v. Adam&s Mark Hotels, 137 F.3d 1069,
1071 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 821 (1998), we agree with the district court that
Crawford’s conservative course of treatment did not demonstrate deliberate
indifference to Nichols’s serious medical need, see Bellecourt v. United States, 994
F.2d 427, 431 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1909 (1994); Davis v. Hall, 992
F.2d 151, 153 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.