Full text
Olajuwon Smith v. Charles Liggett
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________
No. 21-3156 ___________________________
Olajuwon Smith
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Charles Liggett, also known as Leggitt; Dream Young, Health Care Administrator, CCS; Correct Care Solutions Company; Adam Clark, Lieutenant, Ouachita River Correctional Unit, ADC, also known as Sgt. Clark
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________
Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs ____________
Submitted: June 1, 2022 Filed: June 6, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________
Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________
PER CURIAM.
Arkansas inmate Olajuwon Smith appeals following adverse grant of summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Dr. Charles Liggett. After careful
de novo review of the record, we conclude the district court1 properly granted such summary judgment.2 See Morris v. Cradduck, 954 F.3d 1055, 1058 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review); Schaub v. VonWald, 638 F.3d 905, 914 (8th Cir. 2011) (stating Eighth Amendment claim for deprivation of medical care requires showing the inmate suffered from an objectively serious medical need and the prison official knew of need yet deliberately disregarded it); Gibson v. Weber, 433 F.3d 642, 646 (8th Cir. 2006) (requiring inmate’s production of medical evidence establishing delay had detrimental effect to avoid summary judgment on claim the delay in treatment was a constitutional deprivation). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________
1 The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting in part the report and recommendation of the Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. 2 The district court also granted summary judgment to Adam Clark in the same order. Smith has not made any meaningful argument challenging that portion of the district court’s order. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (deeming waived a claim not raised or meaningfully argued in opening brief).
-2-