Beck v. Sheryl Ramstad Hvass ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                    United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 04-3967
    ___________
    Beck,                                   *
    *
    Appellant,          *
    *
    v.                               *
    *
    Sheryl Ramstad Hvass, as the current    *
    Commissioner of the Minnesota           *
    Department of Corrections; Nanette      *
    M. Schroeder, as the current Director   *
    of the Minnesota Department of          * Appeal from the United States
    Corrections Health Services Unit;       * District Court for the District
    Maureen Connor, as the current Health * of Minnesota.
    Services Unit Director of the           *
    Minnesota Correctional Facility -       *       [UNPUBLISHED]
    Stillwater; Dr. Worlali M. Nutakor,     *
    as a Physician employed by              *
    Correctional Medical Services           *
    Incorporated and subcontracted by the *
    Minnesota Department of Corrections *
    to provide inmates confined at the      *
    Minnesota Correctional Facility -       *
    Stillwater with medical care,           *
    *
    Appellees.          *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 7, 2005
    Filed: December 9, 2005
    ___________
    Before ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Minnesota inmate Beck appeals the district court’s* pre-service dismissal of
    Beck's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, under to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and the denial of his
    Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. Having reviewed the record de novo,
    we conclude dismissal was proper. See Beck v. LaFleur, 
    257 F.3d 764
    , 766 (8th Cir.
    2001) (prisoner must allege defendant’s personal involvement or responsibility for
    constitutional violations to state § 1983 claim); Frey v. City of Herculaneum, 
    44 F.3d 667
    , 672 (8th Cir. 1995) (civil rights plaintiff cannot pursue section 1983 claim
    against officials under respondeat superior theory). We also conclude the district
    court did not abuse its discretion in denying Beck’s Rule 60(b) motion, see Jones v.
    United States, 
    255 F.3d 507
    , 511 (8th Cir. 2001) (Rule 60(b) authorizes relief in only
    most exceptional circumstances), nor did the district court abuse its discretion when
    it refused to disqualify the district judge and magistrate judge assigned to Beck’s
    complaint, see In re Hale, 
    980 F.2d 1176
    , 1178 & n.6 (8th Cir. 1992) (standard of
    review; judge is to take into consideration all circumstances both public and private
    and determine if reasonable, uninvolved observer would question judge’s
    impartiality). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Beck’s
    motion for the appointment of counsel.
    ______________________________
    *
    The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District
    of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Franklin L.
    Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
    -2-