Chad DuBois v. Michael Joe Hanvey, No. 16-3955 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Gruender and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Defendants' summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs affirmed without comment; district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint or by denying his motions for appointed counsel and discovery.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3955 ___________________________ Chad DuBois lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Michael Joe Hanvey, Physician’s Assistant, Mike Durfee State Prison, in his individual and official capacities; Dr. Melvin Wallinga, Chief Physician, Mike Durfee State Prison, in his individual and official capacities; Dr. Mary Carpenter, Employee of South Dakota Department of Health, in her individual and official capacities lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls ____________ Submitted: August 29, 2017 Filed: September 5, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Chad DuBois appeals after the district court adversely granted summary judgment on his claim that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. He argues that the district court erred in granting defendants summary judgment, and abused its discretion in denying his motions for leave to amend his complaint, appointment of counsel, and discovery. 1 Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment. See Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, viewing record in light most favorable to nonmovant); Vaughan v. Lacey, 49 F.3d 1344, 1346 (8th Cir. 1995) (disagreement over proper course of treatment is not actionable under Eighth Amendment). We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying DuBois’s motion for leave to amend the complaint, because the proposed amendment would not have altered the analysis. See Kozlov v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 818 F.3d 380, 395 (8th Cir. 2016) (denial of motion to amend complaint is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying DuBois’s motions for appointed counsel and discovery. See Toben v. Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, 751 F.3d 888, 895 (8th Cir. 2014) (district courts have wide discretion in handling discovery matters); Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998) (denial of request for appointed counsel is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. -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.
