Southworth v. Missouri Department of Corrections ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 06-3735
    ___________
    Cheryl Brewer Southworth,             *
    *
    Appellant,               *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                              * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Missouri.
    Missouri Department of Corrections,   *
    *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Defendant,               *
    *
    Correctional Medical Services,        *
    *
    Appellee.                *
    ___________
    Submitted: December 6, 2007
    Filed: December 27, 2007
    ___________
    Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Missouri inmate Cheryl Brewer Southworth appeals the district court’s1 adverse
    grant of summary judgment to Correctional Medical Services (CMS) in her 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action. We review de novo the grant of summary judgment, viewing the
    evidence in a light most favorable to Southworth. See Alberson v. Norris, 
    458 F.3d 1
    The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    762, 765 (8th Cir. 2006). To prevail in an Eighth Amendment lawsuit, an inmate must
    show that her known serious medical needs were deliberately disregarded. See 
    id.
     To
    defeat CMS’s summary judgment motion, Southworth had to create trialworthy issues
    as to whether there was a CMS policy, custom, or action by those who represent
    official CMS policy, that inflicted an Eighth Amendment injury. See Sanders v.
    Sears, Roebuck & Co., 
    984 F.2d 972
    , 975-76 (8th Cir. 1993) (corporate liability under
    § 1983).
    While Southworth offered documents showing that her physical and mental
    condition significantly deteriorated during the period at issue, she did not establish a
    jury question as to whether there was a CMS policy or custom of denying appropriate
    tests and treatment to inmates who exhibit the signs and symptoms she reported or
    experienced, or as to whether financial concerns dictated diagnostic and treatment
    decisions. See Moody v. St. Charles County, 
    23 F.3d 1410
    , 1412 (8th Cir. 1994)
    (party seeking to defeat summary judgment must substantiate allegations with
    sufficient probative evidence to permit finding in his favor based on more than
    speculation or conjecture). Southworth could not defeat summary judgment with
    articles about CMS and prison medical care in general, or by offering the views of
    laypersons that CMS provided Southworth with inadequate care, and that CMS
    providers are known to base their treatment decisions on cost. See Brooks v. Tri-
    Systems, Inc., 
    425 F.3d 1109
    , 1111 (8th Cir. 2005) (hearsay cannot be used to defeat
    summary judgment motion); Perry v. Kemna, 
    356 F.3d 880
    , 889 (8th Cir. 2004)
    (noting that newspaper articles were hearsay and also unrelated to proceedings);
    Erickson v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 
    271 F.3d 718
    , 728 (8th Cir. 2001) (affidavits
    opposing summary judgment shall be made on personal knowledge, and show
    affirmatively that affiant is competent to testify to matters stated therein).
    Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny the pending motions.
    ______________________________
    -2-