James Murphy v. Correctional Medical Services, et al, No. 11-1107 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - prisoner civil rights. District court did not err in dismissing unexhausted claims; with respect to plaintiff's one exhausted claim for deliberate indifference to medical needs, plaintiff failed to create a genuine issue as to whether the defendant disregarded any risk to plaintiff's health.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-1107 ___________ James Murphy, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Correctional Medical Services, Inc., * Board of Directors; Roland John * Anderson, Medical Director, CMS; * George Wilson, Regional Director; * Tom Bradshaw, Area Director; Kevin * [UNPUBLISHED] Sanders, Unit Infirmary Medical * Director; Dr. Horace Marvin, Jr., * North Central Unit, ADC; Dr. Jodi * Lefevers, North Central Unit, ADC; * Linda Hunt, R.N., North Central Unit, * ADC; Carla Selvey, CNA, North * Central Unit, ADC, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: June 21, 2011 Filed: June 24, 2011 ___________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate James Murphy appeals following the district court s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his pro se 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment. Initially, we note that Murphy s discovery-related argument on appeal is unavailing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) (if non-movant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify opposition, court may, inter alia, allow time to take discovery); Nolan v. Thompson, 521 F.3d 983, 986 (8th Cir. 2008) (in absence of motion for continuance under Rule 56 accompanied by affidavit, district court generally does not abuse its discretion in granting summary judgment on basis of record before it). Turning to the district court s summary judgment decision, we agree with the district court that Murphy failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on all but one of his claims, and we affirm the dismissal of the unexhausted claims. See Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 627 (8th Cir. 2003) (if exhaustion was not completed at time of filing suit, dismissal is mandatory). As to Murphy s exhausted claim against defendant Anderson for alleged deliberate indifference in treating a shoulder injury, we agree with the district court that there was no genuine issue as to whether Anderson disregarded any risk to Murphy s health. See Gibson v. Weber, 433 F.3d 642, 646 (8th Cir. 2006) (to show deliberate indifference, inmate must prove that prison officials knew about excessive risks to health but disregarded them, and that their unconstitutional acts caused his injuries). 1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, 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- We affirm the judgment. ______________________________ -3-
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.
