Deverick Scott v. James Gibson, No. 18-3333 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Gruender and Stras, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Dismissal of prisoner's failure-to-protect claims affirmed without comment; court lacked jurisdiction to consider the magistrate judge's order on a non-dispositive pretrial matter as the ruling had not been appealed to the district court.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-3333 ___________________________ Deverick Scott lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. James Gibson, Warden, Varner Supermax, ADC; Shipman, Assistant Warden, Varner Supermax, ADC; Carroll, Major, Varner Supermax, ADC; Simpson-Williams, Sergeant, Varner Supermax, ADC; Mothershed, CO II, Varner Supermax, ADC lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff ____________ Submitted: August 6, 2019 Filed: August 9, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Arkansas inmate Deverick Scott appeals after the district court1 dismissed his complaint, in which he sought to assert a failure-toprotect claim. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that Scott’s complaint was properly dismissed. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face); Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 851 (8th Cir. 2018) (holding that, to prevail on a failure-to-protect claim, an inmate must show that there was substantial risk of harm to inmate, and that a prison official was deliberately indifferent to that risk); Gardener v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting that there is no § 1983 liability based on a prison official’s violation of prison policy). In addition, we lack jurisdiction to review the magistrate judge’s denial of Scott’s motion to “correct” his complaint. See Daley v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 415 F.3d 889, 893 n.9 (8th Cir. 2005) (concluding that, when the parties do not consent to final disposition by a magistrate judge, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider a direct appeal of a magistrate judge’s order on a nondispositive pretrial matter; explaining that a litigant may not bypass the district court and appeal such an order directly to the court of appeals). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable James M. Moody Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Beth M. Deere, 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.
