Filed: Mar. 08, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 01-3723 _ Gary Barfield, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Dr. Duong Ly, East Arkansas * District Court for the Eastern Regional Unit, ADC; Bernard * District of Arkansas. Williams, Infirmary Manager, East * Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Max * [UNPUBLISHED] Mobley, Deputy Director of Health * Services, Arkansas Department of * Correction, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: March 6, 2002 Filed: March 8, 2002 _ Before WOLL
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 01-3723 _ Gary Barfield, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Dr. Duong Ly, East Arkansas * District Court for the Eastern Regional Unit, ADC; Bernard * District of Arkansas. Williams, Infirmary Manager, East * Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Max * [UNPUBLISHED] Mobley, Deputy Director of Health * Services, Arkansas Department of * Correction, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: March 6, 2002 Filed: March 8, 2002 _ Before WOLLM..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-3723
___________
Gary Barfield, *
*
Appellant, *
*
v. *
* Appeal from the United States
Dr. Duong Ly, East Arkansas * District Court for the Eastern
Regional Unit, ADC; Bernard * District of Arkansas.
Williams, Infirmary Manager, East *
Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Max * [UNPUBLISHED]
Mobley, Deputy Director of Health *
Services, Arkansas Department of *
Correction, *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: March 6, 2002
Filed: March 8, 2002
___________
Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Gary Barfield challenges the district court's dismissal of Barfield's 42 U.S.C.
ยง 1983 lawsuit after holding a pretrial evidentiary hearing. After careful
consideration of all the evidence, the district court concluded there was no evidence
from which a jury could find the correctional officials acted with deliberate
indifference to Barfield's serious medical needs. Based on our de novo review, see
Randle v. Parker,
48 F.3d 301, 303 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review), we agree
with the district court and thus affirm the order of dismissal. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-