Kiara Smith v. Steven Broughton, et al, No. 08-1369 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - prisoner civil rights. Defendants' summary judgment on prisoner's claims of deliberate indifference to his medical needs is affirmed; as the district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state law medical malpractice claim, the dismissal of that claim should be without prejudice.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-1369 ___________ Kiara Smith, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Larry Norris, Director, * Arkansas Department of * Correction; Wendy Kelly, Deputy * Director, ADC; James Gibson, * Officer Administrator, ADC; Minnie * Drayer, Hearing Officer, ADC; * Justin Minor, Hearing Officer, ADC; * Chris Coody, Hearing Officer, ADC; * Sandra Stratton, CMS Administrator; * Revonna Walker, Classification * Officer, Varner Unit, ADC; D * Hampton, Officer, Varner Unit, ADC; * Tammy Luckett, Grievance Officer, * Varner Unit, ADC; Abesie Kelly, * Mental Health, ADC; Slater, Mrs. * Mental Health, ADC; Willie Hampton, * Mental Health, ADC; Compton, Mr., * Mental Health, ADC; Does, Jane/John, * Mental Health, ADC; Brooks Parks, * Assistant Warden, Varner Unit, ADC; * Kim Luckett, Assistant Warden, * Varner Unit, ADC; Grant Harris, * Warden, Varner Unit, ADC; Thomas * Rowland, Captain, Varner Super Max, * ADC, * * Defendants, * Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. [UNPUBLISHED] * Steven Broughton, Dr., (Originally * sued as a John Doe Defendant); Ravi * Mehta, Dr., (Originally sued as John * Doe Defendant), * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: May 15, 2009 Filed: June 8, 2009 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate Kiara Smith appeals the district court s1 adverse judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Following careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Smith s claims following an evidentiary hearing, see Randle v. Parker, 48 F.3d 301, 303 (8th Cir. 1995) (de novo review), or in denying Smith leave to amend his complaint to add state law claims of outrage and civil conspiracy, see In re K-tel Int l, Inc. Sec. Litig., 300 F.3d 881, 899 (8th Cir. 2002) (de novo review where denial of leave to amend is based on failure of amended complaint to state a claim). Because the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law medical malpractice claim, however, dismissal of that claim should have been without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Labickas v. Ark. State Univ., 78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). 1 The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, but we modify dismissal of the state law medical malpractice claim to be without prejudice. We also deny Smith s pending motion. ______________________________ -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
