Porter v. St. Louis County

Eighth Circuit

Porter v. St. Louis County

407 F. App'x 67

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 7, 2011

DocketNo. 10-3324

StatusPublished

This text of 407 F. App'x 67 (Porter v. St. Louis County) 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

Porter v. St. Louis County, 407 F. App'x 67 (8th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Andre Porter appeals the adverse grant of summary judgment entered by the District Court¹ in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having conducted de novo review of the record and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Porter, see Mason v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 559 F.3d 880, 884-85 (8th Cir.2009) (standard of review), we cannot say that defendants’ conduct rose to the level of deliberate indifference within the meaning of applicable case law, [68]*68see Langford v. Norris, 614 F.3d 445, 459-60 (8th Cir.2010). We also conclude that the District Court did not improperly consider the affidavits that were notarized by defense counsel, and did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel. Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny Porter’s motion for counsel.

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

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Andre Porter appeals the adverse grant of summary judgment entered by the District Court¹ in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having conducted de novo review of the record and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Porter, see Mason v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 559 F.3d 880, 884-85 (8th Cir.2009) (standard of review), we cannot say that defendants’ conduct rose to the level of deliberate indifference within the meaning of applicable case law, [68]*68see Langford v. Norris, 614 F.3d 445, 459-60 (8th Cir.2010). We also conclude that the District Court did not improperly consider the affidavits that were notarized by defense counsel, and did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel. Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny Porter’s motion for counsel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

407 F. App'x 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-st-louis-county-ca8-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack