Danny Sitton v. Correctional Medical Services, No. 14-2140 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil Case - civil rights. Adverse grant of summary judgment is summarily affirmed. District court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to recuse.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-2140 ___________________________ Danny Sitton lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Correctional Medical Services; Erin Escamilla, Nurse; Dr. John A. Matthews; Dr. Thomas Baker; Pamela Swartz, Nurse; Dave Dormire, Warden; George Lombardi, Director, Missouri Department of Corrections lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City ____________ Submitted: April 17, 2015 Filed: April 27, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BYE, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Inmate Danny Sitton appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment on his claims against Correctional Medical Services and Dr. John A. Matthews in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We find no merit to Sitton’s challenges to the grant of summary judgment. See Mason v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 559 F.3d 880, 884-85 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo review). We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Sitton’s motion for recusal. See 28 U.S.C. § 144 (requiring reassignment if party files timely and sufficient affidavit stating judge has personal bias or prejudice against him or in favor of adverse party); Bannister v. Delo, 100 F.3d 610, 614 (8th Cir. 1996) (judge presiding over case is presumed impartial and party bears substantial burden of proving otherwise; not all unfavorable dispositions towards individual or his case are properly described by terms bias or prejudice). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western 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.
