Danny McCarthy v. Dr. Neil Mullins

337 F. App'x 595
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJuly 10, 2009
Docket08-2081
StatusUnpublished

This text of 337 F. App'x 595 (Danny McCarthy v. Dr. Neil Mullins) 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
Danny McCarthy v. Dr. Neil Mullins, 337 F. App'x 595 (8th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Former inmate Danny T. McCarthy appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having conducted de novo review of the relevant parts of the record, see Roe v. Crawford, 514 F.3d 789, 793 (8th Cir.) (summary judgment standard of review), cert. denied, -U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 109, 172 L.Ed.2d 34 (2008); Griffith v. City of Des Moines, 387 F.3d 733, 739 (8th Cir. 2004) (claims not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned), we find no basis for reversal. 2 Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

2

. It appears from McCarthy’s brief seeking an award of damages that he incorrectly believes the district court ruled in his favor on the claims he addresses on appeal.

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

Related

Roe v. Crawford
514 F.3d 789 (Eighth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
337 F. App'x 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/danny-mccarthy-v-dr-neil-mullins-ca8-2009.