David Brodigan v. Ben Swink, No. 21-1718 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Shepherd, and Stras, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. The district court did not err in concluding plaintiff had not exhausted his claims concerning pre-surgery treatment; nor did the court err in determining that no individual defendant was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's post-surgery complications, or that plaintiff had not shown the medical service provider had a policy or custom of delaying necessary medical care.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-1718 ___________________________ David James Brodigan lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Ben E. Swink, M.D., et al. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: December 3, 2021 Filed: December 10, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Missouri inmate David Brodigan appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims that defendants 1 The Honorable John A. Ross, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. delayed or denied adequate medical treatment of his serious hernia condition in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We affirm the grant of summary judgment. See Cockram v. Genesco, Inc., 680 F.3d 1046, 1051 (8th Cir. 2012). We agree with the district court that Brodigan did not exhaust any claims regarding his pre-surgery treatment, see Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211, 218 (2007); no individual defendant was deliberately indifferent to his post-surgery complications, see Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239-40 (8th Cir. 1997); and no reasonable jury could find that defendant Corizon, LLC had a policy or custom of denying or delaying necessary medical care, see Johnson v. Hamilton, 452 F.3d 967, 973 (8th Cir. 2006). We also conclude that the court did not err in denying Brodigan’s motions for a subpoena or depositions, see Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc., 903 F.3d 733, 742 (8th Cir. 2018), or for appointment of counsel, see Stevens v. Redwing, 146 F.3d 538, 546 (8th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
