Mark Bowers v. T. Bredeman, No. 16-3926 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Arnold and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Defendants' summary judgment on former prisoner's claims of deliberate indifference to medical needs affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3926 ___________________________ Mark Bowers lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. David A. Mullen, MD, ERDCC; John Williams, MD, MECC; Karl Hardman, RN BN Health Service Administrator lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants T. Bredeman, Medical Director of Corizon lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: June 28, 2017 Filed: July 6, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Former Missouri prisoner Mark Bowers appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming deliberate indifference to his medical needs. After de novo review, see Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012), we affirm. Specifically, we find that neither the denial of a requested orthopedic evaluation, nor the delay in reviewing a subsequent request for evaluation, constituted deliberate indifference to Bowers’s serious medical needs. See Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d 336, 342 (8th Cir. 2011); Meuir v. Greene Cty. Jail Emps., 487 F.3d 1115, 1118–19 (8th Cir. 2007) (physicians are free to exercise independent medical judgment); Vaughan v. Lacey, 49 F.3d 1344, 1346 (8th Cir. 1995) (mere disagreement, even between physicians, over proper course of treatment is not actionable under Eighth Amendment). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable John A. Ross, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -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.
