Steven Hayes v. Dr. Thomas Daniel, No. 22-3032 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Benton, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment in this medical-needs case affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-3032 ___________________________ Steven C. Hayes lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Dr. Thomas Daniel lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee Dr. Nannette Vowell; Physician Assistant Sharonda Long; Dr. Larry Davis, D.D.S; Dr. Madison Talliaferro, D.D.S.; Nurse Jason Kelley; Dr. Jeffrey Stieve; Rory Griffin, Deputy Director of Health; Ombudsman Charlotte Gardner; Staff Psychiatrist Eugene Lee; Staff Psychiatrist Raymond K. Molden; Staff Psychiatrist Shawn Richard; Stan Wofford, Senior Vice President of Correct Care Solutions (CCS); Jorge Dominicis, Executive of CCS/WellPath; Gerard “Jerry” Boyle, Founder of CCS; Nurse Parsons, Wellpath; Mail Room Supervisor Sue Alford, ADC; Crystal McCoy lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs ____________ Submitted: May 30, 2023 Filed: June 2, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Steven C. Hayes appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms. This court has reviewed the record de novo, and the parties’ arguments on appeal, and finds no basis for reversal. See Jackson v. Reibold, 815 F.3d 1114, 1119 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for adverse grant of summary judgment; facts are reviewed in light most favorable to nonmovant, and this court will affirm if record shows there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and moving party is entitled to judgment as matter of law); Scott v. Benson, 742 F.3d 335, 339-40 (8th Cir. 2014) (to prove deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, plaintiff must establish that he was diagnosed by a physician as requiring treatment, or that his medical need was so obvious that even a layperson would recognize the necessity for medical attention; and that defendant knew of but deliberately disregarded the serious medical need); see also Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439, 449 (8th Cir. 2010) (inmate’s mere difference of opinion over matters of expert medical judgment or course of medical treatment does not amount to constitutional violation). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. The motion to expedite the appeal and grant default judgment is denied as moot. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -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.
