Terry Ratliff v. Sheriff of Burleigh County, No. 13-2544 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil Case - prisoner civil rights. Dismissal without prejudice of civil rights complaint was proper. Ratliff failed to state a claim of denial of access to the court because he did not allege actual injury; his conditions-of-confinement issues claim failed because deprivations were objectively not sufficiently serious; and he failed to state of claim based on inadequate medical care. [ October 09, 2013
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2544 ___________________________ Terry Lee Ratliff lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Sheriff of Burleigh County; Administrator of Burleigh County; Burleigh County Detention Center Staff lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck ____________ Submitted: October 3, 2013 Filed: October 11, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. North Dakota inmate Terry Lee Ratliff appeals the district court s1 dismissal, without prejudice, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. After careful de novo review, see Kaden v. Slykhuis, 651 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam), this court concludes that dismissal was proper. Ratliff failed to state a claim based on denial of access to the courts because he did not allege actual injury to any pending or contemplated legal claim. See Myers v. Hundley, 101 F.3d 542, 544 (8th Cir. 1996). He failed to state a claim based on the conditions of his confinement because the deprivations he alleged were objectively not sufficiently serious. See Williams v. Delo, 49 F.3d 442, 445 (8th Cir. 1995). He also failed to state a claim based on inadequate medical care. While he alleges new facts on appeal, the allegations before the district court did not indicate that he suffered from an objectively serious medical need, which were actually known by defendants, but deliberately disregarded. See Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 499 (8th Cir. 2008) (defining standard); Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court is not required to assume facts not alleged). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Charles S. Miller, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of North Dakota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
