Randy Jones v. Stephen Sparks, No. 19-2971 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Kelly, Wollman and Stras, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Defendants' summary judgment on plaintiff's deliberate indifference to medical needs claim affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2971 ___________________________ Randy Dean Jones, Sr. lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Stephen Sparks; Tasha Whelan lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees Nick Ludwig lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant Mark Roberts; Rebecca Bowker; Deb Nichols lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees John Marsh; John and Jane Doe, Medical Staff and Administrators in the Iowa Department of Corrections lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: May 19, 2020 Filed: May 22, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before KELLY, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Iowa inmate Randy Dean Jones, Sr. appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment on his deliberate indifference claim. Construing the record in a light most favorable to Jones, and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, see Cullor v. Baldwin, 830 F.3d 830, 836 (8th Cir. 2016) (de novo review), we find no basis for reversing the grant of summary judgment, see Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d 336, 342 (8th Cir. 2011) (inmate alleging delay in treatment must present verifying medical evidence that delays adversely affected his prognosis). The judgment is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and Jones’s pending motion for counsel is denied as moot. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. -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.
