Travis Ross v. Dr. Mary Carpenter, No. 16-3056 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Loken, Bowman, and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - civil rights. Grant of summary judgment is affirmed, as defendant entitled to sovereign immunity on official capacity claims for damages and Ross failed to show defendant was deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs. [ February 13, 2017
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3056 ___________________________ Travis Ross lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Dr. Mary Carpenter, Director of Prison Health Care, in her individual and official capacity lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Pierre ____________ Submitted: February 7, 2017 Filed: February 14, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. South Dakota inmate Travis Ross appeals after the District Court1 granted summary judgment to the defendant in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. After de novo 1 The Honorable Roberto A. Lange, United States District Court Judge for the District of South Dakota. review, see Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014), we conclude that Dr. Carpenter was entitled to sovereign immunity on Ross’s official-capacity claims for damages. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985) (“[A]n official-capacity suit is . . . to be treated as a suit against the [government] entity.”); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (per curiam) (noting that unless a state consented to the filing of a suit by a private party, such a suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment). We further conclude that Ross failed to show that Dr. Carpenter was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See Barton v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958, 964–65 (8th Cir. 2016) (explaining the deliberate-indifference standard); Roe v. Crawford, 514 F.3d 789, 799 (8th Cir.) (“[I]f a procedure is not medically necessary, then there is no necessity for a doctor’s attention.”), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 821 (2008); Goff v. Harper, 60 F.3d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1995) (observing that “in the prison context, a request for injunctive relief must always be viewed with great caution” given the complexities inherent in prison administration). We affirm the judgment. ______________________________ -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.
