David Lee Tidwell v. James Gibson, Warden, Varner Unit Defendant Brandon Medders, Sergeant, Varner SuperMax

21-1707Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitJul 29, 2022

Full text

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 21-3457
___________________________
David Lee Tidwell
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
James Gibson, Warden, Varner Unit
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant
Brandon Medders, Sergeant, Varner SuperMax
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
Rory Griffin, Director, Health and Corr Serv
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant
A. Smith, Doctor, Varner Unit; Gary Kerstein, Doctor, Varner Unit; Estella Bland,
APN, Varner Unit; Amy Jones, Nurse, Varner Unit
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: July 8, 2022
Filed: July 21, 2022
[Unpublished]
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

Before GRUENDER, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Arkansas inmate David Lee Tidwell appeals following the adverse grant of
summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.1 Upon de novo review of the
record, we affirm. See Morris v. Cradduck, 954 F.3d 1055, 1058 (8th Cir. 2020)
(explaining the standard of review); Barr v. Pearson, 909 F.3d 919, 921 (8th Cir.
2018) (stating that an Eighth Amendment claim for the denial of medical care
requires an inmate to show he suffered from an objectively serious medical need, and
the defendant knew of the need yet deliberately disregarded it).
The claims against Sergeant Medders in his official capacity were barred by
sovereign immunity, see Glasgow v. Nebraska, 819 F.3d 436, 441 n.5 (8th Cir. 2016),
and the individual capacity claims failed because Tidwell did not show Medders acted
with deliberate indifference, see Johnson v. Leonard, 929 F.3d 569, 575 (8th Cir.
2019) (explaining that deliberate indifference is more than negligence or gross
negligence and requires culpability akin to criminal recklessness); Holden v. Hirner,
663 F.3d 336, 343 (8th Cir. 2011) (concluding that prison officials who lack medical
expertise are entitled to rely on medical staff opinions about prisoner diagnoses).
Tidwell also failed to show Dr. Kerstein, Nurse Bland, and Nurse Jones acted with
deliberate indifference. See Barr, 909 F.3d at 921-22 (reiterating that inmates have
no right to a particular or requested course of treatment, and a mere difference over
matters of expert medical judgment or the course of treatment do not amount to a
constitutional violation); Fourte v. Faulkner Cnty., 746 F.3d 384, 389 (8th Cir. 2014)
(concluding that when an inmate shows another physician in the same circumstance
1The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Edie
R. Ervin, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

might have ordered different tests and treatment than the prison medical staff, it raises
questions of medical judgment but does not show deliberate indifference). Tidwell
neither rebutted the expert’s opinion that these medical defendants acted within the
appropriate medical standards of care nor offered verifying medical evidence showing
that any delay in treatment had a detrimental effect on his condition. See Jackson v.
Riebold, 815 F.3d 1114, 1119-20 (8th Cir. 2016); Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d
1234, 1240-41 (8th Cir. 1997). Tidwell also waived review of any deliberate-
indifference claims against Dr. Smith because he failed to raise those claims in his
opening brief, and we will not address arguments raised for the first time in his reply
brief. See Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 751 (8th Cir. 2008).
Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tidwell’s
motion for the appointment of counsel after considering relevant factors. See
Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 849-50 (8th Cir. 2018) (explaining the standard of
review and discussing the relevant factors).
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.