Filed: Jan. 11, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 10-3391 _ Dirk Alan Christianson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of North Dakota. Barb Morovits, * * (UNPUBLISHED) Appellee, * * Tompkins Rehabilitation and * Corrections Center (TRCC), * * Defendant. * _ Submitted: December 29, 2010 Filed: January 11, 2011 _ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. North Dakota inmate Dirk Christianson appeals from th
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 10-3391 _ Dirk Alan Christianson, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of North Dakota. Barb Morovits, * * (UNPUBLISHED) Appellee, * * Tompkins Rehabilitation and * Corrections Center (TRCC), * * Defendant. * _ Submitted: December 29, 2010 Filed: January 11, 2011 _ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. North Dakota inmate Dirk Christianson appeals from the..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-3391
___________
Dirk Alan Christianson, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of North Dakota.
Barb Morovits, *
* (UNPUBLISHED)
Appellee, *
*
Tompkins Rehabilitation and *
Corrections Center (TRCC), *
*
Defendant. *
___________
Submitted: December 29, 2010
Filed: January 11, 2011
___________
Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
North Dakota inmate Dirk Christianson appeals from the district court’s1 28
U.S.C. § 1915A dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Barb
Morovits, a licensed counselor at the Tompkins Rehabilitation and Corrections Center.
Upon careful de novo review, we find no basis for reversal. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t
of State Police,
491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989) (because Eleventh Amendment immunizes
state from suit, neither state nor its officials acting in their official capacities are
“persons” under § 1983 when sued for damages); Gibson v. Weber,
433 F.3d 642, 646
(8th Cir. 2006) (Eighth Amendment claim based on inadequate medical attention
requires proof that officials knew about excessive risks to inmate’s health but
disregarded them and that their unconstitutional actions in fact caused inmate’s
injuries; showing of deliberate indifference requires more than gross negligence);
Cooper v. Schriro,
189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam)
(§ 1915A dismissal reviewed de novo); Miner v. Brackney,
719 F.2d 954, 955 (8th
Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (claims for defamation are not cognizable under § 1983); see
also Stone v. Harry,
364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (in general, claims not
presented in district court may not be advanced for first time on appeal).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1
The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the District of North Dakota, adopting the report and recommendations of the
Honorable Karen K. Klein, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of North
Dakota.
-2-