Reginald L. Dunahue v. Marshall Dale Reed, Chief Deputy Director, ADC

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1805
___________________________
Reginald L. Dunahue
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Marshall Dale Reed, Chief Deputy Director, ADC
Defendant
Aundrea Culclager, Warden, Cummins Unit, ADC; Kenneth Starks, Captain,
Cummins Unit, ADC
Defendants - Appellees
Isaac Wade, Captain, Cummins Unit, ADC; Greg Mussellwhite, Warden,
Cummins Unit, ADC; Jeremy Andrews, Deputy Warden, Cummins Unit, ADC
Defendants
Kennie Bolden, Deputy Warden, Cummins Unit, ADC
Defendant - Appellee
Avery, Lieutenant, Cummins Unit, ADC; Curry Branham, Lieutenant, Cummins
Unit, ADC; Rosieanna Lee, Sanitation & Housekeeping Coordinator/Sup.,
Cummins Unit, ADC; Florence Hadley, Sanitation & Housekeeping
Coordinator/Sup., Cummins Unit, ADC; Michelle Rucker, Sanitation &
Housekeeping Coordinator/Sup., Cummins Unit, ADC; L. Smith, Sanitation &
Housekeeping Coordinator/Sup., Cummins Unit, ADC; James Shipman, Warden,

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Tucker Max, ADC; William Straughn, Deputy Director, ADC; Tina Deen,
Business Manager, Tucker Max; Maurice Culclager, Deputy Warden, Tucker Max
Defendants
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: June 12, 2026
Filed: June 17, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Reginald L. Dunahue appeals the district
court’s1 order denying his motion for summary judgment and granting summary
judgment for the defendants. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court
affirms.
Following a de novo review of the record and the parties’ arguments on
appeal, this court agrees with the district court’s disposition of Dunahue’s claims.
See Luer v. Clinton, 987 F.3d 1160, 1165 (8th Cir. 2021) (grant or denial of summary
judgment reviewed de novo). The district court correctly determined that Dunahue’s
official-capacity damages claim was barred by sovereign immunity, and his official-
capacity claim for injunctive relief was moot. See Walker v. Bowersox, 526 F.3d
1 The Honorable Billy Roy Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, now deceased, adopting the report and recommendations of the
Honorable Benecia Moore, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District
of Arkansas.

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
1186, 1189 (8th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (injunctive-relief claim regarding conditions
of confinement is moot if plaintiff is no longer subject to those conditions); Will v.
Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66, 71 (1989) (Eleventh Amendment bars
suit against state for alleged deprivation of civil liberties unless state has waived its
immunity; naming state officials in official capacity equivalent to suit against state
itself). This court also concludes that Dunahue failed to meet his burden to produce
evidence sufficient to support his individual-capacity failure-to-protect claim. See
Vandevender v. Sass, 970 F.3d 972, 975 (8th Cir. 2020) (prison official may be liable
for Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect violation if there is a substantial risk of
harm to inmate, and prison official was deliberately indifferent to that risk) (citations
omitted); see also Johnson v. Exide Techs., Inc., 137 F.4th 676, 679 (8th Cir. 2025)
(unsupported assertions of “controverted” facts cannot create genuine dispute);
Zubrod v. Hoch, 907 F.3d 568, 577 (8th Cir. 2018) (granting summary judgment
where plaintiffs failed to provide competent, admissible evidence to rebut
defendants’ version of events; “plaintiffs may not stave off summary judgment
armed with only the hope that the jury might disbelieve witnesses’ testimony”)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 247-49 (1986) (burden is on plaintiff to produce evidence that would
support jury verdict). Finally, because we agree with the district court that Dunahue
failed to prove defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights, we decline to
address the issue of qualified immunity. See A.H. v. St. Louis Cty., Mo., 891 F.3d
721, 726-27 (8th Cir. 2018) (concluding this court need not address qualified
immunity where district court correctly concluded that plaintiffs failed to prove
constitutional violation); Sterling v. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Arkansas, 42
F.4th 901 (8th Cir. 2022) (qualified immunity determination on summary judgment
reviewed de novo).
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________

-- 3 of 3 --