Earl Wilson v. Rick Toney, et al, No. 07-2268 (8th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - civil rights. District court order granting prison officials' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claims concerning his exposure to tuberculosis is affirmed as plaintiff failed to show the defendants knew of but ignored the risk, and liability cannot be based solely on defendants' general responsibility to oversee prison operations; district court did not err in granting medical defendants' motion for summary judgment as the evidence at trial showed they were not involved in plaintiff's diagnosis or treatment or did not set TB policy.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-2268 ___________ Earl Parker Wilson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Rick Toney, Warden, Varner Unit, * ADC; Randall Manus, Warden, Varner * [UNPUBLISHED] Unit, ADC; Grant Harris, Warden, * Varner Unit, ADC; Bradberry, Warden, * Varner Unit, ADC; John Does, * Treatment Department, Varner Unit, * ADC; Kay Brodnax, in her individual * and Official Capacities; Correctional * Medical Services, Inc.; Judy Nettles, in * her individual and Official Capacities, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: September 2, 2008 Filed: September 25, 2008 ___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Former Arkansas inmate Earl Wilson appeals the district court s1 adverse grant of summary judgment to several Arkansas Department of Correction officials (ADC defendants), and dismissal as to Correctional Medical Services (CMS) and its employees Kay Brodnax and Judy Nettles (medical defendants) after a bench trial, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from his exposure to tuberculosis (TB).2 Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that Wilson failed to establish that the ADC defendants--who had no medical expertise or role in delivering medical care--knew of but ignored Wilson s risk of exposure to TB, and that liability cannot be based solely on defendants general responsibility to oversee prison operations. See Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 499 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); Hartsfield v. Colburn, 371 F.3d 454, 457 (8th Cir. 2004) (to establish deliberate indifference, inmate must show he suffered from objectively serious medical need that defendant knew of but ignored); Keeper v. King, 130 F.3d 1309, 1314 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting that general responsibility for supervising operations of prison is insufficient to establish personal involvement required to support liability under § 1983). We also conclude the district court properly rejected Wilson s claims against medical defendants. See Weir v. Nix, 114 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review). Trial testimony established that neither individual defendant was directly responsible for or personally involved in Wilson s diagnosis or treatment, and that 1 The Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 2 To the extent any Doe defendants remain in this lawsuit, they were never served. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (providing for dismissal without prejudice as to unserved defendants); Young v. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co., 864 F.2d 81, 83 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (where only unserved defendants remain in action, judgment is final appealable order). -2- CMS did not have responsibility for any TB policy Wilson had challenged; and section 1983 does not allow for supervisory liability absent personal involvement or actual knowledge. See Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir 1995) (when supervisory liability under § 1983 attaches); Sanders v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 984 F.2d 972, 975-76 (8th Cir. 1993) (no § 1983 liability for corporation acting under color of state law unless unconstitutional conduct resulted from corporation policy or custom, and corporation cannot be held liable under § 1983 on theory of respondeat superior); cf. Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985) (because plaintiff did not allege that one defendant was personally involved in or had direct responsibility for incidents that injured him, his claims were not cognizable under § 1983). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
