Charles Black v. James Linker, No. 16-3894 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Defendant, a former inmate, failed to show that the alleged delays in medical care had a detrimental effect on his health, that he was denied pain medication or that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3894 ___________________________ Charles Edward Black lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. James Linker, Lieutenant, Pope County Detention Center, et al. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: July 27, 2017 Filed: August 1, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Former Arkansas inmate Charles Black appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which he alleged that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Upon careful de novo review, see Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review), we conclude that summary judgment was proper because Black failed to show that the alleged delays had a detrimental effect on his health, see Jackson v. Riebold, 815 F.3d 1114, 1119-20 (8th Cir. 2016); that defendants were deliberately indifferent, see Fourte v. Faulkner Cty., Ark., 746 F.3d 384, 387 (8th Cir. 2014); or that he was denied pain medication. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -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.
