Jarell Davis Terry v. Calvin Arnett, Sergeant, EARU (Originally named Arnett and John Doe Officers)

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2849
___________________________
Jarell Davis Terry
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Calvin Arnett, Sergeant, EARU (Originally named Arnett and John Doe Officers)
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
Douglas Swiney, Lieutenant, EARU (Originally named Swiney and John Doe Officers)
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant
Roosevelt Bearden, Captain, EARU (Originally named R Bearden)
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
Amanda Granger, Former Lieutenant, EARU (Originally named Granger)
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant
Bernard Hamilton, Jr., Sergeant, EARU (Originally named Hamilton); Kenyon
Randle, Major, EARU; Tiantha Westbrook, Sergeant, EARU (Originally named
Westbrook); Demarcus Lewis, Corporal, EARU (Originally named Lewis); Dennis
Ugbaja, Corporal, EARU (Originally named Ugbaja); Jamie Leak, Corporal,
EARU (Originally named Leaks)
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Delta
____________
Submitted: January 26, 2023
Filed: February 6, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, GRASZ, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Arkansas inmate Jarell Terry appeals following the district court’s1 adverse
grant of summary judgment in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison
guard Calvin Arnett used excessive force against him. Upon de novo review, see
Stanley v. Hutchinson, 12 F.4th 834, 838 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review), we
affirm.
We conclude that the district court properly relied on the facts depicted by the
surveillance video, which blatantly contradicted Terry’s version of the facts, in
deciding the summary judgment motions. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380-81
(2007) (where non-movant’s version of events was blatantly contradicted by video
evidence, court should not adopt that version of facts in ruling on summary judgment
motion, but should view facts in light depicted by video). In light of the facts shown
by the video, we agree that Arnett’s use of force was a good-faith effort to restore
discipline. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992) (holding that core inquiry
1The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the
Honorable Patricia S. Harris, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District
of Arkansas.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

in prison excessive-force case is whether force was applied in good-faith effort to
restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm, and discussing
relevant factors). Terry waived his challenge to the authenticity of the video by
failing to raise the issue before the magistrate judge, see Dusseldorp v. Cont’l Cas.
Co., 951 F.3d 981, 985 (8th Cir. 2020), and waived his claims against the other
appellees by offering no argument about them in his briefs, see Stanley, 12 F.4th at
838 n.4.
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --