Edward Carter v. Amanda King, No. 16-4250 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Gruender and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. The district court's order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's deliberate-indifference-to- medical-needs claim affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4250 ___________________________ Edward Carter lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Amanda King, RN/Health Service Administrator, Varner Unit; Jeremy Andrews, Former Assistant Warden, Varner Unit; Correctional Care Services; John and Jane Does, company share holders lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff ____________ Submitted: August 31, 2017 Filed: September 15, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate Edward Carter appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 deliberate-indifference claim related to a medical decision to terminate a prescription that precluded him from having to use stairs. After carefully reviewing the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment. See Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of grant of summary judgment, viewing record in light most favorable to nonmovant). To begin, we find no merit to Carter’s suggestion that evidence in the record was falsified. Cf. Clay v. Credit Bureau Enters., Inc., 754 F.3d 535, 539 (8th Cir. 2014) (to survive summary judgment motion, non-moving party must substantiate allegations with sufficient probative evidence that would permit finding in his favor based on more than speculation or conjecture). Furthermore, the evidence established beyond genuine dispute that the medical decision at issue was based upon an appropriate review of Carter’s medical records, and Carter merely disagreed with that decision. See Nelson v. Corr. Med. Servs., 583 F.3d 522, 528-29 (8th Cir. 2009) (prison official violates Eighth Amendment if official knows of and disregards serious medical need or substantial risk to inmate’s health or safety); Langford v. Norris, 614 F.3d 445, 460 (8th Cir. 2010) (mere disagreement with treatment decisions does not rise to level of constitutional violation). 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 Beth Deere, 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.
