Filed: Nov. 06, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 15-1922 _ Eric Eugene Atkisson lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Dr. Scott Lafferty; Nurse Darla Watson; Sheriff Cradduck lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville _ Submitted: October 7, 2015 Filed: November 6, 2015 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate Eric Atkisson
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 15-1922 _ Eric Eugene Atkisson lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Dr. Scott Lafferty; Nurse Darla Watson; Sheriff Cradduck lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville _ Submitted: October 7, 2015 Filed: November 6, 2015 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate Eric Atkisson a..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-1922
___________________________
Eric Eugene Atkisson
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Dr. Scott Lafferty; Nurse Darla Watson; Sheriff Cradduck
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: October 7, 2015
Filed: November 6, 2015
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Arkansas inmate Eric Atkisson appeals after the district court1 granted
summary judgment for defendants in Atkisson’s action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. His principal argument on
appeal is that his motions for appointment of counsel were denied for insufficient
reasons. The merits of those orders are not properly before us, however, because they
were issued by the magistrate judge and Atkisson did not timely seek district-court
review, see Daley v. Marriott Int’l, Inc.,
415 F.3d 889, 893 n. 9 (8th Cir.2005); and
any error concerning his motions for extensions of time to object to the magistrate
judge’s rulings were harmless, because they did not affect Atkisson’s substantial
rights in the circumstances of this case, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 61. Finally, liberally
construing Atkisson’s submissions on appeal as including a merits challenge to the
grant of summary judgment (which appellees have fully briefed), we have conducted
careful de novo review, see Meuir v. Greene Cnty. Jail Emps.,
487 F.3d 1115, 1118
(8th Cir. 2007), and we affirm the grant of summary judgment for the reasons
explained by the district court.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1
The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the
Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of
Arkansas.
-2-