Michael Simpson v. FCC Forrest City Low, No. 15-1775 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Bivens action. In this action alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs, the district court did not err by denying plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction or by dismissing the action as the evidence established beyond genuine dispute that defendants were not deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's serious medical needs.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1775 ___________________________ Michael Dale Simpson, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FCC Forrest City Low, Medical Department; B. Wooten, Registered Nurse, FCC Forrest City Low; M. Wingo, Physician Assistant, FCC Forrest City Low; Charles Miller, Unit Counselor, FCC Forrest City Low, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena ____________ Submitted: November 26, 2015 Filed: December 21, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Michael Simpson brought this pro se action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), asserting medical deliberate-indifference claims, among other claims. Simpson appeals after the district court1 denied his motion for a preliminary injunction, concluded that all of his claims failed as a matter of law, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, and entered judgment dismissing the case with prejudice. Also pending are Simpson’s motions to “change the style of the case,” and for reconsideration of an order entered by the clerk’s office. Upon careful review, we first conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Simpson’s motion for a preliminary injunction. See Dataphase Sys. Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc). We further conclude that the district court appropriately disposed of Simpson’s claims, because, among other reasons, the record established beyond genuine dispute that defendants were not deliberately indifferent to Simpson’s serious medical needs. See Allard v. Baldwin, 779 F.3d 768, 771-72 (8th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. In addition, Simpson’s pending motions are denied. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District 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.
