David Ditter v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-2338
___________________________
David Ditter
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Nebraska Department of Correctional Services; Scott Frakes, in his individual &
official capacity; Randy T. Kohl, MD, in his individual & official capacity;
Correct Care Solutions; Ronald Ogden, DDS, in his individual & official capacity;
Lisa Mathews, in her individual & official capacity
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln
____________
Submitted: February 1, 2019
Filed: February 5, 2019
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 2 --

Nebraska inmate David Ditter appeals following the district court’s adverse1
grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Viewing the record in a
light most favorable to Ditter, and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, we
find that the district court properly granted summary judgment. See Laganiere v. Cty.
of Olmsted, 772 F.3d 1114, 1116 (de novo review). We also find no error in the
district court’s denial of Ditter’s motions to add information to the record, and to
preserve specific evidence for trial. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th2
Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District1
of Nebraska.
We have not considered claims Ditter has waived, evidence that was not part2
of the summary judgment record, or matters Ditter raises for the first time on appeal.
See Combs v. Cordish Cos., 862 F.3d 671, 678 n.9 (8th Cir. 2017) (this court
considers only evidence that was before district court when summary judgment ruling
was made); Jenkins v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 751 (8th Cir. 2008) (where there is no
meaningful argument on claim in opening brief, it is deemed waived); Stone v. Harry,
364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004) (declining to consider pro se appellant’s new
allegations, arguments, and claims).
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --