Dexter Anderson v. United States, No. 13-2482 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Bivens. Defendants' summary judgment on plaintiff's deliberate indifference to medical needs, negligence and retaliation claims affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2482 ___________________________ Dexter D. Anderson lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. United States of America; Warden B. R. Jett; S. Young, Associate Warden; C. Nickrenz, Associate Warden; Dr. M. Nelson, Clinical Director; L. Krieg, Doctor; J. Schultz, CDR-Rehab Services; J. Feda, DPT-OCS-Rehab Services; Federal Medical Center lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: May 6, 2014 Filed: May 7, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BYE, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Dexter Anderson brought this action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act, claiming that several medical professionals who treated him for a knee injury at a federal medical center, along with the warden and two associate wardens at the center, were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, were negligent in caring for him, and retaliated against him for exercising his constitutional rights when they downgraded his medical-care status and transferred him to another federal institution. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which the district court1 granted. This appeal followed. Upon careful de novo review, see Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d 336, 340 (8th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard of review), we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment for the reasons explained in the thorough report and recommendation that the court adopted. As a result, we also reject as meritless Anderson s argument that he was entitled to a jury trial. See Harris v. Interstate Brands Corp., 348 F.3d 761, 762 (8th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we deny his pending motion for oral argument, and we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Leo I. Brisbois, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -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.
