John Adams v. Gary Campbell, No. 14-1390 (8th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case

Court Description: Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. The dismissal of former prisoner's Section 1983 action affirmed without comment.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-1390 ___________________________ John Quincy Adams lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Gary Campbell, MD, Corizon Medical Services, formerly known as Correctional Medical Services, Personal and Individual Capacity; T. Bredeman, MD, Corizon Medical Services, formerly known as Correctional Medical Services, Personal and Individual Capacity; Elizabeth Conley, MD, Corizon Medical Services, formerly known as Correctional Medical Services, Personal and Individual Capacity; Thomas Cabrera, MD, Corizon Medical Services, formerly known as Correctional Medical Services, Personal and Individual Capacity; Corizon Medical Services, Inc.; Robert Griggs, Assistant Warden, NECC, Personal Capacity; Chantey Goddert, Assistant Warden, NECC, Personal Capacity; Doug Prudden, Warden, NECC, Personal Capacity; Unknown Vetter, Correctional Officer I, NECC Personal Capacity lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Hannibal ____________ Submitted: February 19, 2015 Filed: March 2, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Former inmate John Quincy Adams appeals from the order of the District Court1 granting summary judgment to the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action. Upon de novo review of the record, we find no basis for reversal. See Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review). We affirm the judgment of the District Court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -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.