Terry Lee Ratliff v. Sheriff of Burleigh County

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-2544
___________________________
Terry Lee Ratliff
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Sheriff of Burleigh County; Administrator of Burleigh County; Burleigh County
Detention Center Staff
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of North Dakota - Bismarck
____________
Submitted: October 3, 2013
Filed: October 11, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 2 --

North Dakota inmate Terry Lee Ratliff appeals the district court’s dismissal,1
without prejudice, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. After careful de novo review,
see Kaden v. Slykhuis, 651 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam), this court
concludes that dismissal was proper.
Ratliff failed to state a claim based on denial of access to the courts because he
did not allege actual injury to any pending or contemplated legal claim. See Myers
v. Hundley, 101 F.3d 542, 544 (8th Cir. 1996). He failed to state a claim based on the
conditions of his confinement because the deprivations he alleged were objectively
not sufficiently serious. See Williams v. Delo, 49 F.3d 442, 445 (8th Cir. 1995). He
also failed to state a claim based on inadequate medical care. While he alleges new
facts on appeal, the allegations before the district court did not indicate that he
suffered from an objectively serious medical need, which were actually known by
defendants, but deliberately disregarded. See Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d
488, 499 (8th Cir. 2008) (defining standard); Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15
(8th Cir. 2004) (district court is not required to assume facts not alleged).
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
The Honorable Charles S. Miller, United States Magistrate Judge for the1
District of North Dakota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by
consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --