Pete Alspach v. John Baldwin, No. 14-3316 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Smith, Bye and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. In this action alleging deliberate indifference to medical needs, the district court did not err in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment as the unrebutted evidence showed that neither inmate had an objectively serious medical need for dentures.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-3316 ___________________________ Pete Alspach; Joel Smitherman lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants v. John Baldwin; Nicholas Ludwick; John Ault; Harbans Deol, M.D.; Edward O’Brien, M.D.; Heather Brueck; Darrell Moeller; Joni Wells; John Doe, Dentist lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines ____________ Submitted: November 20, 2015 Filed: November 24, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Iowa inmates Pete Alspach and Joel Smitherman brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking damages based on their claim that defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to the inmates’ need for dentures by allowing them to remain a lengthy period of time on a waiting list before providing the dentures. The district court1 granted summary judgment for defendants, finding that they were entitled to qualified immunity in the circumstances of this case. Upon careful de novo review, see Moore v. Jackson, 123 F.3d 1082, 1086 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review), we conclude summary judgment was properly granted, because we agree with the district court that the unrebutted evidence showed that neither inmate had an objectively serious medical need for dentures, see Fourte v. Faulkner Cnty., Ark., 746 F.3d 384, 387-88 (8th Cir. 2014) (qualified immunity analysis); Scott v. Benson, 742 F.3d 335, 340 (8th Cir. 2014) (objectively serious medical need is one diagnosed by physician as requiring treatment, or one so obvious that even layperson would easily recognize need for doctor’s attention). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. The motion for appointed counsel is denied. ______________________________ 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.
