Court Opinion

ID: 9947291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-04 16:01:46.429679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:18.232015
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 23-2256
                       ___________________________

                              Nuuth Amir Na’im

                                    Plaintiff - Appellant

                                       v.

                         Dexter Payne, Director, ADC;
          Carol Chisom, DON, ADC (originally named as C Chison);
         Loren Stringfellow, Dentist (originally named as Springfellow)

                                  Defendants - Appellees
                                ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of Arkansas
                                ____________

                         Submitted: February 28, 2024
                            Filed: March 4, 2024
                                [Unpublished]
                               ____________

Before COLLOTON, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.

      In this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to
serious dental needs, Arkansas inmate Nuuth Na’im appeals the grant of summary
judgment in favor of Dr. Loren Stringfellow by the district court. 1 Having carefully
reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we affirm. See Morris v.
Cradduck, 954 F.3d 1055, 1058 (8th Cir. 2020) (reviewing de novo grant of
summary judgment). We agree Na’im failed to present any evidence to allow a
reasonable jury to conclude Dr. Stringfellow was deliberately indifferent to Na’im’s
dental needs, as the record directly refutes Na’im’s claims regarding Dr.
Stringfellow’s treatment or any delay in treatment. See Conolly v. Clark, 457 F.3d
872, 876 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting “a properly supported summary judgment motion
is not defeated by self-serving affidavits”); Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234,
1240 (8th Cir. 1997) (noting an inmate may not create question of fact merely by
stating treatment was inadequate to oppose medical records and physician affidavits
indicating care was provided and adequate); Redmond v. Kosinski, 999 F.3d 1116,
1120 (8th Cir. 2021) (noting a plaintiff must present medical evidence that
provider’s actions did not meet standard of care). We also conclude the district court
did not err in relying on the experts’ declarations submitted by Dr. Stringfellow. Cf.
United States v. Real Prop. Located at 3234 Washington Ave. N., 480 F.3d 841, 845
(8th Cir. 2007) (holding summary judgment should be denied if non-moving party’s
evidence materially undermines credibility of critical witness).

      Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law medical malpractice and negligence
claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); King v. City of Crestwood, 899 F.3d 643, 651
(8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review).

      The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                      ______________________________

      1
        The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, adopting the Recommended Disposition of the Honorable Edie
R. Ervin, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
                                        -2-