Source: http://ne.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180511_0001947.DNE.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 15:32:21+00:00

Document:
NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, SCOTT FRAKES, in his individual & official capacity, RANDY T. KOHL, MD, in his individual & official capacity, CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, RONALD OGDEN, DDS, in his individual & official capacity, and LISA MATHEWS, in her individual & official capacity, Defendants.
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Tecumseh State Correctional Institution (“TSCI”), claims that the dental care he received there constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide him with dental implants, ground down some of his healthy teeth, and-as to Correct Care Solutions-maintained a policy or custom of deliberately disregarding state prisoners' objectively serious dental needs in order to increase its profit.
Summary judgment should be granted only “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). It is not the court's function to weigh evidence in the summary judgment record to determine the truth of any factual issue, but to decide whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Schilf v. Eli Lilly & Co., 687 F.3d 947, 949 (8th Cir. 2012). In passing upon a motion for summary judgment, the district court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Dancy v. Hyster Co., 127 F.3d 649, 652-53 (8th Cir. 1997).
In order to withstand a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must substantiate allegations with “‘sufficient probative evidence [that] would permit a finding in [his] favor on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy.'” Moody v. St. Charles Cnty., 23 F.3d 1410, 1412 (8th Cir. 1994) (quoting Gregory v. City of Rogers, 974 F.2d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 1992)). “A mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient to avoid summary judgment.” Id. Essentially, the test is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986).
A party opposing summary judgment “may not rest upon the mere allegation or denials of his pleading, but . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial, and must present affirmative evidence in order to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment.” Ingrassia v. Schafer, 825 F.3d 891, 896 (8th Cir. 2016) (quotation and citation omitted); see also Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-60 (1970).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.