Don Maxwell v. Sandra Perez, et al


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Pasco M. Bowman and Diana E. Murphy (UNPUBLISHED) [4380150] [15-2456]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2456 ___________________________ Don Merceleany R. Maxwell lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Sandra Perez, Nurse, Corizon, ADC medical providers; John Doe, W/M Nurse, Corizon, ADC medical providers; Stevenson, Nurse, Corizon, ADC medical providers; Boston, Nurse, Corizon, ADC medical providers; John Does, Doctors, ADC, Corizon medical providers, Maximum Security Classification Officer, Dr. and sick call processor, B/M Correctional Officer; Hunter, Nurse, ADC, Corizon medical provider; Alva M. Green/McDowell, Medical staff, ADC, Corizon medical provider (originally named as Brown); Chamber, CO-1, ADC Maximum Security Unit; Strickland, Correctional Officer, ADC Maximum Security Unit lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff ____________ Submitted: March 17, 2016 Filed: March 22, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Appellate Case: 15-2456 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2016 Entry ID: 4380150 Arkansas inmate Don Maxwell filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against prison healthcare providers and correctional officers claiming that they showed deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, discriminated against him, and retaliated against him. The District Court1 granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment, and Maxwell appeals. After de novo review, we agree with the District Court that Maxwell can show no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Mason v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 559 F.3d 880, 884–85 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Specifically, Maxwell did not establish that the correctional officers violated his constitutional rights when he stumbled and fell while they were escorting him to the infirmary or when they pulled him up. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (explaining the elements of a prisoner-rights claim based on “failure to prevent harm”). His retaliation claim was properly dismissed for want of exhaustion. See Hammett v. Cofield, 681 F.3d 945, 947 (8th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (describing exhaustion requirement). As to the medical issues, the evidence shows that Maxwell was provided consistent treatment for his medical complaints, and nothing in the record supports a claim that the treatment was “grossly inappropriate or evidenced intentional maltreatment.” Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1241 (8th Cir. 1997). Finally, the record does not support Maxwell’s claims of discrimination. We affirm the judgment. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- Appellate Case: 15-2456 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2016 Entry ID: 4380150

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?