Chuck Goodman, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Duane Shillinger, Warden; Dr. A.p. Kirsch, M.d.; Jimferguson, Deputy Warden; Ron Ruettgers; Williamkline, Defendants-appellees, 947 F.2d 953 (10th Cir. 1991)

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Chuck Goodman appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment against him in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against the warden, various subordinate officers in the Wyoming state penitentiary, and A.P. Kirsch, M.D., a contract physician for the prison. The complaint alleged deliberate indifference rising to the level of a constitutional violation under Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). Plaintiff asserted that his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated (1) when the prison officials made him walk, shackled and handcuffed, across an icy stretch of terrain to a vehicle that was to carry him to a hospital for tests, where he fell, and (2) when the officials subsequently failed to administer properly to his medical needs. After considering plaintiff's deposition, the medical records, and the affidavits from various defendants and medical personnel, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, finding there was no contested issue of fact that would warrant a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff on either of his claims.

Since the district court's decision the United States Supreme Court has further defined the deliberate indifference test. See Wilson v. Seiter, 111 S. Ct. 2321 (1991). The defendants' state of mind must be considered and something beyond negligence is necessary to state a constitutional claim under this standard. Id.

We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that nothing beyond negligence can be shown with respect to the slip-and-fall accident; plaintiff's previous escape from custody justified the use of handcuffs and shackles. Further, the medical records produced in district court indicate that neither the prison officials nor the doctor deliberately denied plaintiff medical care for his condition.¹  Plaintiff in fact received "frequent, numerous, and detailed medical examinations for his complaints of neck, head, and back pain." I R. doc. 10. These included a CAT scan, bone scan, MRI neck scan, and multiple x-rays. Further, the five orthopedic surgeons and a neurologist who examined plaintiff found no injury or damage except "degenerative bone changes." Id.

The record clearly shows that plaintiff failed to present facts supporting his allegation of deliberate indifference by defendants.

AFFIRMED.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.