Werner Rummer v. State of North Dakota, No. 16-1131 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Arnold and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Defendants' summary judgment on plaintiff's claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs is affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1131 ___________________________ Werner Wolfgang Rummer lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. State of North Dakota; ND Department of Corrections; ND State Penitentiary; Rough Rider Industries; Leann K. Bertsch; Timothy Schuetzle; Dennis Francazi; Dennis Kroh; Pete Fried; Steve Johnson; Robyn T. Schmalenberger; Darcy Klimpel; Kathy Bachmeier; Jessica Wilkins; John Hagan lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck ____________ Submitted: December 21, 2016 Filed: December 28, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. North Dakota inmate Werner Wolfgang Rummer appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Viewing the summary judgment record in a light most favorable to Mr. Rummer, and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, see Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review), we agree with the district court that there were no jury issues on Mr. Rummer’s claims of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. See Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439, 449 (8th Cir. 2010) (inmate’s mere difference of opinion over matters of expert medical judgment or course of medical treatment do not amount to constitutional violation); Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 499 (8th Cir. 2008) (deliberate indifference is akin to criminal recklessness, and inmate must show more than even gross negligence); see also Jackson v. Riebold, 815 F.3d 1114, 1119-20 (8th Cir. 2016) (inmate must place verifying medical evidence in record to establish detrimental effect of medical treatment delay). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.2 ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Charles S. Miller, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the District of North Dakota. 2 We have not considered Mr. Rummer’s challenges to orders denying his motions for counsel and discovery, including a discovery hearing, because the orders were issued by the magistrate and he did not object to the orders below. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (where pretrial matter not dispositive of party’s claim is referred to magistrate, party may serve and file objections to magistrate’s order within 14 days; party may not assign error defect in order not timely objected to); see also St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc. v. Tormey, 779 F.3d 894, 901-02 (8th Cir. 2015) (party could not challenge magistrate’s nondispositive pretrial discovery order on appeal as he did not timely file objections before district court). -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.
