Tyrone Ellis v. Patrick Drummond, No. 16-4565 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Bowman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. The district court did not err in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment as the record established beyond genuine dispute that defendant did not disregard plaintiff's medical needs.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4565 ___________________________ Tyrone Ellis lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Patrick Drummond, APN, East Arkansas Regional Unit lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena ____________ Submitted: July 28, 2017 Filed: August 10, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate Tyrone Ellis appeals after the district court1 adversely granted summary judgment in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Upon careful review, we conclude that summary judgment was appropriately granted, as the record established beyond genuine dispute that Drummond did not disregard Ellis’s medical needs. See Fourte v. Faulkner Cty., Ark., 746 F.3d 384, 387 (8th Cir. 2014) (concluding that a deliberate-indifference claim requires showing that defendants actually knew of, but deliberately disregarded, objectively serious medical need); Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014) (requiring that a grant of summary judgment be reviewed de novo, viewing record in light most favorable to non-moving party). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable D. P. Marshall, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Joe J. Volpe, United States Magistrate 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.
