Derrick Fields v. Correctional Officer Darnequious Evans ( 2023 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2089
___________________________
Derrick D. Fields
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Correctional Officer Darnequious Evans, MCDC, also known as Correctional
Officer Evans; Correctional Officer Kameron Dockery, also known as
Correctional Officer Dockery; Nurse Steven King; Nurse Lisa Davidson; Nurse
Chelsey Foster; Allan Hickerson, MCDC
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana
____________
Submitted: December 11, 2023
Filed: December 14, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Derrick Fields appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment
in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Reviewing de novo, we affirm. See Hall v.
Higgins, 77 F.4th 1171, 1178 (8th Cir. 2023) (standard of review).
The correctional officer defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless
they exhibited “deliberate or callous indifference to [Fields’s] safety.” See Patterson
v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 851 (8th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Summary judgment was appropriate on this count because Fields failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact that the correctional officer defendants knew of and
were deliberately indifferent to any danger posed to Fields. See Holden v. Hirner,
663 F.3d 336, 340-42 (8th Cir. 2011); see also Tucker v. Evans, 276 F.3d 999, 1001
(8th Cir. 2002) (“We have held in several cases that qualified immunity for prison
officials is appropriate when . . . [a] failure-to-protect claim arises from inmate
injuries resulting from a surprise attack by another inmate.”).
The nurse defendants are entitled to summary judgment unless Fields can raise
a genuine dispute of material fact that “(1) he suffered from an objectively serious
medical need, and (2) defendants knew of the need yet deliberately disregarded it.”
Hall, 77 F.4th at 1178. “[A] detainee’s mere disagreement with a medical
professional’s treatment decisions, alone, is insufficient.” Id. at 1179. The nurse
defendants evaluated Fields, responded to his requests, and provided him with
medication. Although Fields may disagree with their treatment decisions, he has not
raised a genuine dispute of material fact that he had an objectively serious medical
need or that, even assuming arguendo he had such a need, it was deliberately
disregarded.
1
The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the
Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District
of Arkansas.
-2-
As Fields did not establish that any individual defendant committed a
constitutional violation, we agree that summary judgment was proper on the official-
capacity claims against all defendants. See Murray v. Lene, 595 F.3d 868, 873 (8th
Cir. 2010).
We deny Fields’s pending motion and affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-3-