Dennis Gaede v. James Podrebarac, No. 12-2729 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil Case - civil rights. District court's grant of summary judgment in civil rights action is summarily affirmed.
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Court for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck ____________ Submitted: February 28, 2013 Filed: March 8, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.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. Inmate Dennis James Gaede appeals following the district court s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. ยง 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-
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.
