Billy Adams v. Ray Hobbs

Eighth Circuit

Billy Adams v. Ray Hobbs

402 F. App'x 157

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedNovember 29, 2010

Docket10-2138

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 402 F. App'x 157 (Billy Adams v. Ray Hobbs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Billy Adams v. Ray Hobbs, 402 F. App'x 157 (8th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Inmate Billy Tirrell Adams appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We conclude that the claims against the Arkansas Department of Correction defendants were properly dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, see King v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr., 598 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir.) (de novo standard of review), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 499, 178 L.Ed.2d 296 (2010), but we modify the dismissal of those claims to be without prejudice, see Calico Trailer Mfg. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 155 F.3d 976, 978 (8th Cir.1998). As to the remaining claims against Charlotte Green and Dr. Richard Clark, we agree with the district court that Adams failed to create trialworthy issues. See Davis v. Oregon County, Mo., 607 F.3d 543, 548 (8th Cir.2010) (summary judgment standard of review); see also Williams v. Jackson, 600 F.3d 1007, 1014 (8th Cir.2010) (deliberate indifference claim requires showing more than even gross negligence); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (failure to process grievances, without more, is not actionable under § 1983). To the extent Adams is arguing that summary judgment was premature and that the record established deliberate indifference by Dr. Joseph Hughes, Adams did not seek a continuance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) by filing an affidavit showing what facts further discovery might uncover, see Ballard v. Heineman, 548 F.3d 1132, 1136-37 (8th Cir.2008), and he also did not seek leave to add Dr. Hughes as a defendant. Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny Adams’s pending motion for appointment of counsel.

1

. The Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, 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).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Inmate Billy Tirrell Adams appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We conclude that the claims against the Arkansas Department of Correction defendants were properly dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, see King v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr., 598 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir.) (de novo standard of review), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 499, 178 L.Ed.2d 296 (2010), but we modify the dismissal of those claims to be without prejudice, see Calico Trailer Mfg. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 155 F.3d 976, 978 (8th Cir.1998). As to the remaining claims against Charlotte Green and Dr. Richard Clark, we agree with the district court that Adams failed to create trialworthy issues. See Davis v. Oregon County, Mo., 607 F.3d 543, 548 (8th Cir.2010) (summary judgment standard of review); see also Williams v. Jackson, 600 F.3d 1007, 1014 (8th Cir.2010) (deliberate indifference claim requires showing more than even gross negligence); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (failure to process grievances, without more, is not actionable under § 1983). To the extent Adams is arguing that summary judgment was premature and that the record established deliberate indifference by Dr. Joseph Hughes, Adams did not seek a continuance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) by filing an affidavit showing what facts further discovery might uncover, see Ballard v. Heineman, 548 F.3d 1132, 1136-37 (8th Cir.2008), and he also did not seek leave to add Dr. Hughes as a defendant. Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny Adams’s pending motion for appointment of counsel.

1

. The Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 F. App'x 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/billy-adams-v-ray-hobbs-ca8-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack