JAMES G. ELLINGBURG, APPELLANT,
v.
JERRY LLOYD, PARAMEDIC, CUMMINS UNIT, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, STATE OF ARKANSAS, APPELLEE

8th Cir. | 1974-02-20
No. 73-1910
Before HEANEY and BRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and DENNEY, District Judge.
491 F.2d 728 United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (1974) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court affirmed the dismissal of the appellant's petition, agreeing that it was frivolous.


Facts & Procedural History

An inmate sued a paramedic under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging unreasonable delay in receiving medication for his tuberculosis. The District Court found …

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

James G. Ellingburg appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 petition. He alleged in the District Court that on October 26, 1973, the paramedic on duty at the Cummins Unit of the Arkansas Department of Corrections denied him “medication for [his] tubercular condition * * * ”.

The District Court, after reviewing its “experience” with the appellant, found:

Petitioner has evidently had tuberculosis in the past, and his present condition calls for medication which is administered to him by paramedical personnel employed at Cummins, including respondent, Jerry Loyd. Petitioner is assigned to duty as a night janitor which is a light job assignment compatible with his physical condition and with his age.

* * * * * *

This time he complains that respondent, Loyd, unreasonably delayed fur nishing him with medication on October 26, 1973. The Court views the petition as frivolous * * * 1

We agree with the trial court’s characterization of the petition and affirm its action.

. We assume that the District Court was acting pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw