Don/McC Cook/Solo v. Jeffrey Stieve, No. 16-3802 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Plaintiff demonstrated neither deliberate indifference nor unconstitutional retaliation by defendant Dr. Stieve, and defendant's summary judgment is affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3802 ___________________________ Don/McC Cook/Solo lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Jeffrey Stieve, Medical Director, Corrrect Care Solutions; Arkansas State Prison; Aric Simmons, APN, Practitioner, Correct Care Solution; Brett Butler, Medical Doctor, Correct Care Solution, a Tennessee Corporation lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff ____________ Submitted: November 8, 2017 Filed: November 14, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas prisoner Don/McC Cook/Solo (Solo) appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Jeffrey Stieve in this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon careful de novo review, see United States v. Dico, Inc., 808 F.3d 342, 346 (8th Cir. 2015), we conclude that Solo demonstrated neither deliberate indifference nor unconstitutional retaliation by Dr. Stieve. See Meuir v. Greene Cty. Jail Emps., 487 F.3d 1115, 1118 (8th Cir. 2007) (prison physicians are free to exercise independent medical judgment); Long v. Nix, 86 F.3d 761, 765 (8th Cir. 1996) (prison officials do not violate Eighth Amendment when, in exercising professional judgment, they refuse to implement inmate’s requested course of treatment). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Joe J. Volpe, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). -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.
