Roderick White v. Jonathan Simmons
This text of 387 F. App'x 652 (Roderick White v. Jonathan Simmons) 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.
Opinion
Arkansas inmate Roderick White appeals the district court’s 1 adverse judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Following careful de novo review, see Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir.2004), we agree with the district court that the undisputed evidence presented at a hearing and in support of the parties’ summary judgment filings showed that no defendant knowingly compelled White to perform labor that was dangerous to his health or unduly painful, or was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, see Ambrose v. Young, 474 F.3d 1070, 1075 (8th Cir.2007) (knowingly compelling inmate to perform labor that is beyond inmate’s strength, dangerous to his life or health, or unduly painful, violates Eighth Amendment); Pietrafeso v. Lawrence County, S.D., 452 F.3d 978, 983 (8th Cir.2006) (deliberate indifference may include intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care, or intentionally interfering with treatment or medication that has been prescribed; defendant’s gross negligence and inmate’s mere disagreement with treatment decisions do not support finding of deliberate indifference). The evidence also established that White did not administratively exhaust, or otherwise allege facts supporting, his retaliation claim.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
387 F. App'x 652, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roderick-white-v-jonathan-simmons-ca8-2010.