ELLIS v. BUTLER (2018)

[Unpublished]

Arkansas inmate Tyrone Ellis appeals after the district court ¹ 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.

FOOTNOTES

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.

PER CURIAM.