Dennis Gaede v. James Podrebarac, et al

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Kermit E. Bye, Morris S. Arnold and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED) [4012670] [12-2729]

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[Unpublished]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.

Appellate Case: 12-2729

Page: 1

Date Filed: 03/08/2013 Entry ID: 4012670

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-

Appellate Case: 12-2729

Page: 2

Date Filed: 03/08/2013 Entry ID: 4012670