James Whitney v. Sergeant Morse, No. 16-2760 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bowman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Defendants were not deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's needs while he was a pre-trial detainee, and the district court's order granting defendants summary judgment is affirmed without further comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-2760 ___________________________ James E. Whitney, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Washington County Detention Center, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant, Sergeant Morse; Whittington, Sergeant; Nurse Rhonda Bradley; Corporal Foster; Corporal Mulvaney; Deputy Workman; Sheriff Tim Helder; Detective Y. Schrock; Aramark Correctional Services, LLC; Deputy Shepherd; Deputy Weissrock, revised from Deputy Weiss Brock per Order dated 8/11/2015; Deputy McNelly, revised from Deputy McNally per Order dated 8/11/2015, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: October 6, 2017 Filed: October 11, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, James Whitney claimed that defendants committed various constitutional violations in their treatment of him while he was confined as a pretrial detainee at the Washington County Detention Center in Arkansas. The district court1 granted defendants summary judgment, and Whitney appeals. We conclude that although Whitney had a constitutional right to nutritionally adequate food, he received three acceptable meals per day on all but about seven occasions, and his weight loss over the course of a few months was a small part of his documented three-year weight loss on a diabetic, gluten-free diet. The evidence thus did not support a finding that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his nutritional needs. See Ingrassia v. Schafer, 825 F.3d 891, 897 (8th Cir. 2016). Because Whitney did not establish that defendants otherwise violated his constitutional rights, we affirm for the reasons given in the magistrate judge’s report, adopted by district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Whitney’s motion for default judgment is denied. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Erin Wiedemann, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western 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.
