Tyrone Ellis v. Brett Butler, No. 17-2500 (8th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner Civil Rights. The record established beyond genuine dispute that, during the relevant time period, defendant Butler did not know of and did not deliberately disregard plaintiff's medical needs, and the court properly granted Dr. Butler's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for deliberate indifference to medical needs.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2500 ___________________________ Tyrone Ellis lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Brett Butler, Doctor, Correct Care Solutions lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff ____________ Submitted: February 20, 2018 Filed: February 28, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.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 asserting a claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. He challenges the denial of a motion he filed seeking to correct a docket entry, and he challenges the summary judgment decision. We have carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal. We first conclude that Ellis’s motion to correct the docket entry was properly denied as moot. We further conclude that summary judgment was properly granted, as the record established beyond genuine dispute that—during the relevant time period— Dr. Brett Butler did not know of, and did not deliberately disregard, Ellis’s medical needs. See Fourte v. Faulkner Cty., Ark., 746 F.3d 384, 387 (8th Cir. 2014) (explaining that deliberate-indifference claim requires showing that defendants actually knew of, but deliberately disregarded, an objectively serious medical need); Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014) (reviewing grant of summary judgment 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 Jerome T. Kearney, 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.