William Cody v. Ashley McDonald, No. 17-2611 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Bowman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Defendants' summary judgment on plaintiff's denial of adequate legal materials or assistance to file an action based on denial of medical care affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2611 ___________________________ William R. Cody lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Ashley McDonald; Tim Meirose; Darin Young; Heather Bowers; Jessica Stevens; Kayla Tinker; Dr. Mary Carpenter, MD; Jennifer Wagner; Linda Miller-Hunoff; Steve Baker, in their individual and official capacities lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls ____________ Submitted: April 23, 2018 Filed: May 7, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. South Dakota inmate William R. Cody appeals following the adverse grant of summary judgment by the District Court1 in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon de novo review, see Murchison v. Rogers, 779 F.3d 882, 886-87 (8th Cir. 2015) (outlining summary judgment standard of review), we find no error in the grant of summary judgment on the only claim at issue in the instant appeal, i.e., that defendants denied Cody adequate legal materials or assistance to file an action based on the denial of medical care.2 See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Roberto A. Lange, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Veronica L. Duffy, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South Dakota. 2 Cody has not filed a reply brief challenging appellees’ assertions that he has waived his other claims. See Hess v. Ables, 714 F.3d 1048, 1051 n.2 (8th Cir. 2013) (claim is waived where this court is not briefed on why the dismissal of the claim was improper). -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.
