Case Name: Danny T. McCARTHY, Appellant, v. Dr. Neil MULLINS; Nurse Sue McDonald; Sheriff Ferguson; Major Drake; Captain Petray, Appellees, and Detention Guards, All Three Shifts, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-10
Citations: 337 F. App'x 595
Docket Number: No. 08-2081
Parties: Danny T. McCARTHY, Appellant, v. Dr. Neil MULLINS; Nurse Sue McDonald; Sheriff Ferguson; Major Drake; Captain Petray, Appellees, and Detention Guards, All Three Shifts, Defendants.
Judges: Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 337
Pages: 595–596

Head Matter:
Danny T. McCARTHY, Appellant, v. Dr. Neil MULLINS; Nurse Sue McDonald; Sheriff Ferguson; Major Drake; Captain Petray, Appellees, and Detention Guards, All Three Shifts, Defendants.
No. 08-2081.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: July 7, 2009.
Filed: July 10, 2009.
Danny T. McCarthy, Waxerly Hall, GA, pro se.
Janan A. Davis, Jeremy Michael MeNabb, Jason E. Owens, Michael R. Rainwater, Rainwater & Holt, Little Rock, AR, for Appellees.
Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Former inmate Danny T. McCarthy appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having conducted de novo review of the relevant parts of the record, see Roe v. Crawford, 514 F.3d 789, 793 (8th Cir.) (summary judgment standard of review), cert. denied, -U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 109, 172 L.Ed.2d 34 (2008); Griffith v. City of Des Moines, 387 F.3d 733, 739 (8th Cir. 2004) (claims not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned), we find no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
. It appears from McCarthy's brief seeking an award of damages that he incorrectly believes the district court ruled in his favor on the claims he addresses on appeal.