Moutray v. Butts, 92-1745
| Decision Date | 08 February 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1745,92-1745 |
| Citation | 985 F.2d 426 |
| Parties | Larry MOUTRAY, Appellee, v. Marilyn BUTTS; Darrell Smith; William Armontrout, Warden; Robert Schoenen, Dr.; Michael Grosse, Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
James R. McAdams, Jefferson City, MO, argued, for appellants.
David L. Boman, Kansas City, MO, argued (Timothy J. Sear, on the brief), for appellee.
Before FAGG, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.
Larry Moutray has been an inmate in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections since early 1987. He is a diabetic. In late 1989, in federal court, Mr. Moutray sued several officials of the prison system, alleging that they had been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in relation to providing a diet and medical care that take into account his diabetic condition. The defendants moved for summary judgment, first, on the merits and, second, on the basis of qualified immunity.
The district court referred the motion to a magistrate for consideration. The magistrate's report with respect to the motion discussed Mr. Moutray's factual allegations and concluded that a genuine issue of material fact existed on the issue of whether the defendants had provided Mr. Moutray with the diet and medical treatment prescribed for his diabetes. The magistrate recommended, therefore, that the defendants' motion for summary judgment be denied. The defendants filed objections to the magistrate's recommendation, the essence of which was, first, that the defendants were not the individuals who controlled the diet and medical care received by Mr. Moutray; second, that the evidence in the record supported the defendants' position that Mr. Moutray's diet and medical care were adequate, rather than Mr. Moutray's arguments; and, third, that the magistrate had failed to address the issue of qualified immunity. By order filed in early 1992, the district court stated that the magistrate's recommendation was "correct in all respects and should be adopted." Accordingly, the district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The defendants appealed the denial of their summary judgment motion, asserting both that the decision on the merits was wrong and that the prison officials were entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. Because we find that we lack jurisdiction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Coonce, 92-3091
...When the order appealed from does not decide the issue of qualified immunity, this court lacks jurisdiction to decide it. Moutray v. Butts, 985 F.2d 426, 427 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 69, 126 L.Ed.2d 38 (1993); Shannon v. White, 992 F.2d 791, 792-93 (8th Cir.1993). ......
-
Krueger v. Fuhr, 92-2427
...28 U.S.C. § 1291. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2817, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). It is true that in Moutray v. Butts, 985 F.2d 426 (8th Cir.1993), this court declined to review a denial of summary judgment where the district court failed to explicitly address the defen......
-
Dawkins v. Graham, 94-2259
...of the Dawkinses' claims. We can consider the merits in this interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity. Moutray v. Butts, 985 F.2d 426, 427 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 69, 126 L.Ed.2d 38 Quoting dicta in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 109 S.Ct. 1865,......
-
Krien v. Norris
.... . See also Washington v. Wilson, 46 F.3d 39, 41 (8th Cir.1995); Jones v. Coonce, 7 F.3d 1359, 1365 (8th Cir. 1993); Moutray v. Butts, 985 F.2d 426, 427 (8th Cir. 1993). Defendants' argument presupposes that the magistrate denied their qualified immunity defense, and that the district cour......