John Moss v. Corizon CMS

Eighth Circuit

John Moss v. Corizon CMS

622 F. App'x 591

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedNovember 12, 2015

Docket15-1382

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 622 F. App'x 591 (John Moss v. Corizon CMS) 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

John Moss v. Corizon CMS, 622 F. App'x 591 (8th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate John Moss appeals the final judgment entered by the district court 1 following the court’s adverse grant of summary judgment on his federal and state-law claims. Also before the court is a motion filed by some of the defendants, seeking a partial dismissal of the appeal.

After careful review, we agree with the district court’s disposition of the federal claims. Specifically, we conclude that the uncontroverted evidence in the record established beyond genuine dispute that defendants did not deliberately disregard Moss’s serious medical needs. See Allard, v. Baldwin, 779 F.3d 768, 771-72 (8th Cir.) (grant of summary judgment reviewed de novo; to prevail on deliberate-indifference claim, plaintiff must show that he suffered from objectively serious medical need, and that prison officials knew of, but deliberately disregarded, those needs), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 211, — L.Ed.2d -(2015). We further conclude that Moss failed to assert a proper basis for a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Cf. Dinkins v. Corr. Med. Servs., 743 F.3d 633, 634-35 (8th Cir.2014) (per curiam) (ADA claim cannot be based on medical treatment decisions). However, we modify the judgment so that the dismissal of Moss’s state-law claims is without prejudice. See Franklin v. Zain, 152 F.3d 783, 786 (8th Cir.1998) (modifying judgment to dismiss without prejudice pendent state-law claim where district *593 court had properly dismissed § 1983 claims). Finally, we conclude that the requested relief in the pending motion is not warranted. See Greer v. St. Louis Reg’l Med. Ctr., 258 F.3d 843, 846 (8th Cir.2001) (notice of appeal that specifies final judgment should be understood to bring up for review all previous rulings and orders that served as predicate for final judgment).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment as modified, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny the pending motion.

1

. The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

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

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate John Moss appeals the final judgment entered by the district court 1 following the court’s adverse grant of summary judgment on his federal and state-law claims. Also before the court is a motion filed by some of the defendants, seeking a partial dismissal of the appeal.

After careful review, we agree with the district court’s disposition of the federal claims. Specifically, we conclude that the uncontroverted evidence in the record established beyond genuine dispute that defendants did not deliberately disregard Moss’s serious medical needs. See Allard, v. Baldwin, 779 F.3d 768, 771-72 (8th Cir.) (grant of summary judgment reviewed de novo; to prevail on deliberate-indifference claim, plaintiff must show that he suffered from objectively serious medical need, and that prison officials knew of, but deliberately disregarded, those needs), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 211, — L.Ed.2d -(2015). We further conclude that Moss failed to assert a proper basis for a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Cf. Dinkins v. Corr. Med. Servs., 743 F.3d 633, 634-35 (8th Cir.2014) (per curiam) (ADA claim cannot be based on medical treatment decisions). However, we modify the judgment so that the dismissal of Moss’s state-law claims is without prejudice. See Franklin v. Zain, 152 F.3d 783, 786 (8th Cir.1998) (modifying judgment to dismiss without prejudice pendent state-law claim where district *593 court had properly dismissed § 1983 claims). Finally, we conclude that the requested relief in the pending motion is not warranted. See Greer v. St. Louis Reg’l Med. Ctr., 258 F.3d 843, 846 (8th Cir.2001) (notice of appeal that specifies final judgment should be understood to bring up for review all previous rulings and orders that served as predicate for final judgment).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment as modified, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny the pending motion.

1

. The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

622 F. App'x 591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-moss-v-corizon-cms-ca8-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack