Olajuwon Smith v. Charles Liggett, also known as Leggitt

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 21-3156
___________________________
Olajuwon Smith
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Charles Liggett, also known as Leggitt; Dream Young,
Health Care Administrator, CCS; Correct Care Solutions Company; Adam Clark,
Lieutenant, Ouachita River Correctional Unit, ADC, also known as Sgt. Clark
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs
____________
Submitted: June 1, 2022
Filed: June 6, 2022
[Unpublished]
____________
Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Arkansas inmate Olajuwon Smith appeals following adverse grant of summary
judgment on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Dr. Charles Liggett. After careful

-- 1 of 2 --

de novo review of the record, we conclude the district court1 properly granted such
summary judgment.2 See Morris v. Cradduck, 954 F.3d 1055, 1058 (8th Cir. 2020)
(standard of review); Schaub v. VonWald, 638 F.3d 905, 914 (8th Cir. 2011) (stating
Eighth Amendment claim for deprivation of medical care requires showing the inmate
suffered from an objectively serious medical need and the prison official knew of
need yet deliberately disregarded it); Gibson v. Weber, 433 F.3d 642, 646 (8th Cir.
2006) (requiring inmate’s production of medical evidence establishing delay had
detrimental effect to avoid summary judgment on claim the delay in treatment was a
constitutional deprivation). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas, adopting in part the report and recommendation of the
Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of
Arkansas.
2The district court also granted summary judgment to Adam Clark in the same
order. Smith has not made any meaningful argument challenging that portion of the
district court’s order. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir.
2004) (deeming waived a claim not raised or meaningfully argued in opening brief).
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --