Dennis Gaede v. James Podrebarac, et al


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Kermit E. Bye, Morris S. Arnold and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED) [4012670] [12-2729]

Download PDF
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Court for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck ____________ Submitted: February 28, 2013 Filed: March 8, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?