Dennis Gaede v. James Podrebarac , 499 F. App'x 637 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •               United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 12-2729
    ___________________________
    Dennis James Gaede
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    James T. Podrebarac; Leann K. Bertsch;
    Warren Emmer; Tim Schuetzle; Kathy Bachmeier
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck
    ____________
    Submitted: February 28, 2013
    Filed: March 8, 2013
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Inmate Dennis James Gaede appeals following the district court’s1 adverse
    grant of summary judgment in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action. Upon de novo review of
    the record, see Mason v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 
    559 F.3d 880
    , 884-85 (8th Cir.
    2009), we find no basis for overturning the grant of summary judgment to defendant
    dentist James T. Podrebarac, see Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 
    690 F.3d 1017
    , 1024 (8th Cir.
    2012) (conjecture and speculation are insufficient to defeat summary judgment);
    Mason, 
    559 F.3d at 885
     (inmate could not rely on inadmissible hearsay to avoid
    summary judgment); see also Nelson v. Shuffman, 
    603 F.3d 439
    , 449 (8th Cir. 2010)
    (inmates have no constitutional right to receive requested or particular course of
    treatment, and prison doctor is free to exercise independent medical judgment;
    inmate’s mere difference of opinion on matters requiring medical judgment does not
    rise to level of constitutional violation). As to the remaining defendants,2 they merely
    responded to Gaede’s grievances, and in doing so, they consulted with Dr.
    Podrebarac. Cf. Meloy v. Bachmeier, 
    302 F.3d 845
    , 849 (8th Cir. 2002) (prison’s
    medical treatment director who lacked medical expertise could not be liable for
    medical staff’s diagnostic decisions). Finally, to the extent Gaede is challenging the
    district court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration, we find no abuse of
    discretion. See Arnold v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 
    627 F.3d 716
    , 721-22 (8th Cir.
    2010). The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, United States District Judge for the District
    of North Dakota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Charles
    S. Miller, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of North Dakota.
    2
    Gaede has waived his claims against Warren Emmer. See Carraher v. Target
    Corp., 
    503 F.3d 714
    , 716 n.2 (8th Cir. 2007).
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-2729

Citation Numbers: 499 F. App'x 637

Judges: Arnold, Bye, Per Curiam, Shepherd

Filed Date: 3/8/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023