Sheppard v. Owen ( 1999 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 28 1999
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
RICKEY LAVERN SHEPPARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 98-7126
JUDY OWEN, Head Nurse, Health
(E. District of Oklahoma)
Administrator; MICHAEL CODY,
(D.C. No. 97-CV-249)
Warden; DENNIS COTNER, Head
Administrator; PRICILLA
DRUMMOND, Head Nurse, O.S.P.; C.
CASE, Nurse; GALE SMITH, C/O II,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Rickey L. Sheppard appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights
complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, Sheppard
asserted that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs in
violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a
thorough order, the district court noted that the record clearly demonstrated
repeated meetings between Sheppard and prison medical staff and concluded that
in light of the evidence of a “series of sick calls, examinations, diagnoses, and
medication . . . it cannot be said there was ‘deliberate indifference’ to the
prisoner’s complaints.” Smart v. Villar, 547 F.2d 112, 114 (10 th Cir. 1976).
Furthermore, the district court held that Sheppard’s difference of opinion with the
prison medical staff as to the kind and quality of medical care necessary under the
circumstances could not support a claim under § 1983. See McCracken v. Jones,
562 F.2d 22, 24 (10 th Cir. 1977).
This court has conducted a de novo review of the parties’ briefs and
contentions, the thorough district court order, and the entire record on appeal. In
light of that close review, this court AFFIRMS for substantially those reasons
-2-
set forth in the district court’s order of dismissal dated August 11, 1998.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT:
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-3-