Opinion ID: 2796893
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mull

Text: Turner argues that Mull was deliberately indifferent to Turner's allegedly -10- serious medical condition because he allegedly threatened to harm Turner if Turner refused to ride in the non-wheelchair-accessible van on October 20, 2011. As discussed in Section III.A, the record does not support that Turner had a serious medical need requiring that he use the wheelchair-accessible van. Based on this reason alone, his individual-capacity claim against Mull for alleged deliberate indifference fails. See Santiago, 707 F.3d at 990. Moreover, and critically, Turner overlooks his own contradictory deposition testimony in which he admitted that he does not know whether it was Mull who allegedly threatened him. Turner's inability to identify who allegedly made the statement is understandable given that, as Turner also testified, the person was behind Turner at the time that he or she made the alleged threat. Turner's contradictory testimony alone cannot create a disputed issue of material fact necessary to survive summary judgment. See, e.g., Marathon Ashland Petroleum, L.L.C. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 300 F.3d 945, 951 (8th Cir. 2002) (holding that a witness's revised testimony does not create an issue of disputed fact necessary to defeat summary judgment).