Estate of James Earl Turner, Lauren Turner Boyd as co-personal representative,… v. Calhoun County Sheriff's Department Defendant Vernon Morris, Sheriff Calhoun County,…

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 21-3657
___________________________
Estate of James Earl Turner, Lauren Turner Boyd as co-personal representative,
Estate of James Earl Turner, Deceased
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Calhoun County Sheriff's Department
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant
Vernon Morris, Sheriff Calhoun County, individually and in his official capacity
as Calhoun County Sheriff; Jarad Hennegan, individually and in his official
capacity as Calhoun County Jail Administrator; Tom Turner, individually and in
his official capacity as an agent of the Calhoun County Sheriff's Department;
Glenn Johnson, individually and in his official capacity as an agent of Calhoun County
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
Arkansas Association of Counties
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - El Dorado
____________
Submitted: January 11, 2023
Filed: June 6, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

Before GRASZ, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
The Estate of James Turner brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against a
sheriff’s department and several officials after James Turner died of chronic
alcoholism and hypertensive cardiovascular disease while in the department’s
custody. The complaint alleged deliberate indifference to Turner’s serious medical
needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court1 granted the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment finding no constitutional violation and
finding in the alternative no violation of a clearly established right as required to
defeat qualified immunity. In particular, the district court determined Turner suffered
from a serious medical condition but the defendants did not subjectively appreciate
that his medical condition was serious. The district court also determined the
defendants were not deliberately indifferent in that they twice offered, and Turner
twice rejected, medical care. Finally, the district court granted summary judgment as
to official-capacity claims and declined to retain jurisdiction over related state-law
claims.
The district court based its ruling in large part on facts as asserted by the
defendants in a statement of material undisputed facts. The Estate did not file a
separate responsive statement of facts. Accordingly, by local rule, the district court
deemed the factual assertions in defendants’ statement to be admitted. See W.D. Ark.
L.R. 56.1(c).
On appeal, the Estate does not present legal argument related to the substantive
standards governing its deliberate indifference claim or qualified immunity. Rather,
1The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

the Estate identifies general summary judgment standards and the need to draw
reasonable inferences in the non-moving party’s favor. Then the Estate cites four
statements of fact from the district court’s order with accompanying citations to the
summary judgment record to purportedly contradict the district court’s statements.
As to each one of the four, however, any purported distinction is either (1) an
impermissible and belated attempt to contest a previously uncontested statement from
the defendants’ statement of facts or (2) immaterial in that it does not demonstrate the
existence of a material dispute of fact when measured against the substantive legal
standards governing this case. Accordingly, we conclude the Estate has presented no
meaningful basis to disturb the district court’s ruling. See Libel v. Adventure Lands
of America, Inc., 482 F.3d 1028, 1033 (8th Cir. 2007) (finding no abuse of a district
court’s discretion in applying an analogous local rule and treating a defendant’s
unchallenged statement of facts as admitted, stating, “The district court was not
obliged to scour the record looking for factual disputes.”).
We affirm the judgment of the district court.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --