Major Calhoun v. Corizon Correctional Health
698 F. App'x 313
8th Cir.
2017
Check Treatment
Docket

Major CALHOUN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORIZON CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE; Roschell Davis, Health Services Administrator, Individually and Officially; Kendis Archer, Medical Director (Former), Individually and Officially; Thomas Kevin Bredeman, Individually and Officially, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-4373

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 29, 2017. Filed: October 4, 2017.

313

Major Calhoun, Pro Se

Jessica L. Liss, Amy J. White, Jackson & Lewis, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendants-Appellees

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Major Calhoun filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming defendants showed deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs with regard to the treatment Calhoun received for his injured right wrist. The district court1 granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment upon finding that the record established, at most, negligence. Following careful de novo review of the record, which included evidence showing that Calhoun consistently received care when he sought treatment and that he eventually underwent a recommended surgical procedure to treat his symptoms, we agree with the district court that defendants are entitled to summary judgment and therefore affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

WEIDONG SUN Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General of the United States Respondent

No. 17-1285

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 26, 2017. Filed: October 4, 2017.

314

Weidong Sun, Pro Se

Carl H. McIntyre, OIL, Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Chinese citizen Weidong Sun petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order affirming, without opinion, an Immigration Judge‘s (IJ‘s) June 2016 decision denying his second motion seeking to rescind a removal order entered in absentia, and to reopen proceedings (motion to rescind/reopen). See (where BIA affirms IJ‘s decision without opinion, this court reviews IJ‘s decision as final agency action). Sun‘s second motion to rescind/reopen was based on his claim that his second attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel. In his brief to this court, Sun has not presented any argument as to why the rejection of his ineffective-assistance claim was error. Thus, he has waived the issue. See (waiver).

Sun‘s brief seeks to challenge only the basis for the IJ‘s November 2015 order denying his first motion to rescind/reopen. This court lacks jurisdiction to review the November 2015 order, however, because Sun did not appeal the denial to the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (alien must exhaust all available administrative remedies before court may review final order of removal);

Notes

1
The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.