Antonio Strong v. United States of America

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1829
___________________________
Antonio Strong
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Delta
____________
Submitted: March 19, 2026
Filed: March 24, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Former federal inmate Antonio Strong appeals the district court’s1 adverse
grant of summary judgment in his pro se action under the Federal Tort Claims Act
1The Honorable Lee P. Rudofsky, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 2 --

(FTCA). Upon careful de novo review, we affirm. See Shanner v. United States, 998
F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review). The district court properly
construed Strong’s negligence claim as a claim for medical injury to which the
Arkansas expert-testimony statute applied. See id. (in FTCA case, court applies
substantive law of state in which events giving rise to complaint occurred); Spring
Creek Living Ctr. v. Sarrett, 890 S.W.2d 598, 600 (Ark. 1995) (claims based on
alleged failure to provide needed medical care are dependent upon expert testimony).
As Strong did not provide the required expert testimony to establish the relevant
standard of care, a deviation from that standard of care, and proximate cause between
that deviation and his injuries, summary judgment was proper. See Ark. Code Ann.
§ 16-114-206(a); Fryar v. Touchstone Physical Therapy, Inc., 229 S.W.3d 7, 12-13
(Ark. 2006) (where plaintiff already had injuries, alleged connection between
provider’s treatment and plaintiff’s injuries would not be matter of common
knowledge or understanding, and jury would require expert testimony to decide
proximate cause); Johnson v. Schafer, 565 S.W.3d 144, 146-47 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018)
(when defendant demonstrates plaintiff’s failure to produce expert testimony,
defendant has shown that no genuine issues of material fact exist and is entitled to
summary judgment). We decline to consider Strong’s new res ipsa loquitor argument
on appeal. See Engelhardt v. Qwest Corp., 918 F.3d 974, 982 (8th Cir. 2019).
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --