Robert Slack v. Samantha Turntine, No. 15-1376 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Bye and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Defendants' summary judgment on plaintiff's deliberate-indifference-to-medical-needs claims affirmed without comment. [ July 10, 2015
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1376 ___________________________ Robert Slack lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Samantha Turntine, Individual Capacity; Brenda Reagan lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: July 6, 2015 Filed: July 13, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, BYE, and KELLY Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Missouri inmate Robert Slack appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action asserting Eighth Amendment 1 The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. deliberate-indifference claims. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that the district court’s summary judgment decision was proper. See Peterson v. Koop, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review); Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 499 (8th Cir. 2008) (to establish Eighth Amendment violation based on deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, inmate must show that officials knew of but deliberately disregarded objectively serious medical need; deliberate indifference is akin to criminal recklessness and requires more than gross negligence or mere disagreement with treatment decision); see also Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430 (8th Cir. 1997) (failure to follow prison policy is not basis for § 1983 liability). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
