Jackson v. Riebold, No. 14-2775 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, an inmate at USMCFP, filed suit alleging that defendant was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to respond in a timely manner when the artery comprising his dialysis access port ruptured. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant on plaintiff's deliberate indifference claim where plaintiff provided no evidence showing that any delay in treatment had a detrimental effect; the district court did not err in denying plaintiff additional time for discovery; and the district court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint because amendment would be futile. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment in its entirety.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Murphy and Melloy, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case- Bivens action. In action alleging delay in medical treatment at the Federal Medical Center, plaintiff provided no evidence showing that the delay in treatment had any detrimental effect, and the district court did not err in granting defendant summary judgment on plaintiff's deliberate indifference to serious medical needs; on the record the district court did not err in denying plaintiff additional time for discovery; nor did the court err in denying his motion to amend his complaint as amendment would have been futile.
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.