Richard Delon Day v. Kimberly Emery ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                    United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 06-2123
    ___________
    Richard Delon Day, Jr.,                *
    *
    Appellant,                *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                               * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Arkansas.
    Kimberly Emery, Dental Assistant,      *
    North Central Unit, ADC; Cass Cherry, * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Medical Administrator, North Central *
    Unit, ADC, originally sued as Cash     *
    Cherry; Thomas Bailey, Dr., North      *
    Central Unit, ADC, originally sued as *
    T. Bailey; Correctional Medical        *
    Services; John Does, (1-5),            *
    *
    Appellees.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: June 15, 2007
    Filed: June 20, 2007
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Arkansas inmate Richard Delon Day, Jr., appeals the district court’s1 order
    dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action following an evidentiary hearing. Because
    Day did not make a jury demand, we review the district court’s factual findings for
    clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. See Choate v. Lockhart, 
    7 F.3d 1370
    ,
    1373 n.1 (8th Cir. 1993). Contrary to Day’s suggestions on appeal, the district court
    was entitled to discount some of his testimony and accept the testimony of others, see
    Estate of Davis v. Delo, 
    115 F.3d 1388
    , 1394 (8th Cir. 1997) (credibility
    determinations are uniquely within fact finder’s province); and we conclude the court
    did not err in rejecting Day’s deliberate-indifference and negligence claims, see
    Alberson v. Norris, 
    458 F.3d 762
    , 765 (8th Cir. 2006) (to prevail on Eighth
    Amendment claim, plaintiff must show more than gross negligence). We further
    conclude that Day’s evidence fell short of establishing an equal protection violation,
    see Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 
    372 F.3d 979
    , 984 (8th Cir. 2004) (to prevail on
    equal protection claim, inmate had to show that he was treated differently than
    similarly situated classes of inmates, and that differing treatment burdened one of his
    fundamental rights and bore no rational relationship to legitimate penal interest), or
    a breach of contract on the part of Correctional Medical Services.
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ________________________________
    1
    The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the
    Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the
    Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District
    of Arkansas.
    -2-