Shannon D. Hollie v. Essentia Health, Moose Lake Clinic

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1220
___________________________
Shannon D. Hollie
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Essentia Health, Moose Lake Clinic; Benjamin Marsh, Medical Doctor, Essentia
Health; in their Official and Individual Capacities; Jane/John Does, Unknown
Individuals; in their Official and Individual Capacities
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: September 3, 2024
Filed: September 13, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before KELLY, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 2 --

Shannon Hollie, who is civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender
Program, appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his pro
se civil rights action. Upon careful de novo review, we affirm. See Glover v.
Bostrom, 31 F.4th 601, 603 (8th Cir. 2022) (standard of review). We agree with the
district court that the constitutional claims against Dr. Marsh failed, as Dr. Marsh was
not a state actor subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Roberson v. Dakota
Boys & Girls Ranch, 42 F.4th 924, 928 (8th Cir. 2022) (only state actor can be liable
under § 1983 for acting under color of state law). The claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981
and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also failed, as Hollie did not show
that Dr. Marsh’s refusal to provide the procedure he requested was due to his race or
his alleged disability. See Comcast Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Afr. Am.-Owned Media,
589 U.S. 327, 341 (2020) (to prevail on § 1981 claim, plaintiff must prove that, but
for his race, he would not have suffered loss of legally protected right); Baribeau v.
City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465, 484 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (to establish
ADA violation, plaintiff must show that he was denied entity’s services or otherwise
discriminated against by reason of his disability).
Hollie’s vicarious liability claims against Essentia Health also failed, as the
underlying claims against Dr. Marsh failed, and as Hollie offered no evidence
showing that the denial of the procedure was due to Essentia Health’s policies. See
Sanders v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 984 F.2d 972, 975-76 (8th Cir. 1993) (corporation
acting under color of state law will only be held liable under § 1983 for its own
unconstitutional policies, and cannot be held liable under respondeat superior theory).
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1The Honorable Katherine M. Menendez, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable
Leo I. Brisbois, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --