United States Court of Appeals
                              For the Eighth Circuit
                          ___________________________

                                  No. 16-3056
                          ___________________________

                                        Travis Ross

                          lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

                                              v.

Dr. Mary Carpenter, Director of Prison Health Care, in her individual and official capacity

                         lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
                                        ____________

                      Appeal from United States District Court
                       for the District of South Dakota - Pierre
                                    ____________

                              Submitted: February 7, 2017
                               Filed: February 14, 2017
                                    [Unpublished]
                                    ____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

    South Dakota inmate Travis Ross appeals after the District Court1 granted
summary judgment to the defendant in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. After de novo

      1
       The Honorable Roberto A. Lange, United States District Court Judge for the
District of South Dakota.
review, see Peterson v. Kopp, 

, 598 (8th Cir. 2014), we conclude that Dr.
Carpenter was entitled to sovereign immunity on Ross’s official-capacity claims for
damages. See Kentucky v. Graham, 

, 166 (1985) (“[A]n
official-capacity suit is . . . to be treated as a suit against the [government] entity.”);
Alabama v. Pugh, 

, 782 (1978) (per curiam) (noting that unless a state
consented to the filing of a suit by a private party, such a suit is barred by the
Eleventh Amendment). We further conclude that Ross failed to show that Dr.
Carpenter was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. See Barton v.
Taber, 

, 964–65 (8th Cir. 2016) (explaining the deliberate-indifference
standard); Roe v. Crawford, 

, 799 (8th Cir.) (“[I]f a procedure is not
medically necessary, then there is no necessity for a doctor’s attention.”), cert. denied,

(2008); Goff v. Harper, 

, 520 (8th Cir. 1995) (observing that
“in the prison context, a request for injunctive relief must always be viewed with
great caution” given the complexities inherent in prison administration).

       We affirm the judgment.
                       ______________________________




                                           -2-