HAYES v. CCS (2020)

[Unpublished]

Arkansas inmate Roesevelt Hayes appeals from the district court's ¹ adverse grant of summary judgment on the merits of Hayes's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon de novo review, see Murchison v. Rogers, 779 F.3d 882, 886-87 (8th Cir. 2015) (viewing record in light most favorable to non-movant, and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor), we conclude that the district court properly analyzed the Eighth Amendment claims, see Fourte v. Faulkner Cnty., Ark., 746 F.3d 384, 387 (8th Cir. 2014) (deliberate indifference requires showing defendants knew of, but deliberately disregarded, objectively serious medical needs). Likewise, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See Zubrod v. Hoch, 907 F.3d 568, 580 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Patricia S. Harris, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

PER CURIAM.