United States v. Markell HamiltonUnited States v. Markell Hamilton
Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
In this
Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that the district court‘s decision was proper. See Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (“We review summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.“). The record established beyond genuine controversy that the medical treatment Blackwell received did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference and that Blackwell merely disagreed with the treatment he received. See Jackson v. Buckman, 756 F.3d 1060, 1065 (8th Cir. 2014) (explaining that, to prevail on a claim of deliberate indifference, a pretrial detainee must show more than even gross negligence); Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439, 449 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting that an inmate‘s “mere difference of opinion over matters of expert medical judgment or a course of medical treatment fail[s] to rise to the level of a constitutional violation“). Moreover, Blackwell did not establish that he suffered any detrimental effect from the alleged delays in his medical treatment. See Jackson v. Riebold, 815 F.3d 1114, 1119-20 (8th Cir. 2016) (stating that an inmate must place verifying medical evidence in the record to establish the detrimental effect of a delay in medical treatment).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Blackwell‘s pending motions as moot.
Dan Chatham, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney‘s Office, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Markell Jay Hamilton, Pro Se
John D. Jacobsen, Jacobsen & Johnson, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Defendant-Appellant
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Markell Hamilton directly appeals after the he pled guilty to a drug charge, and the district court sentenced him to an above-Guidelines-range prison term. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Hamilton has filed a pro se brief, arguing, as relevant, that the district court plainly erred in calculating his criminal history score by including his Illinois conviction for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, because a portion of the relevant statute had been ruled unconstitutional by the Illinois Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit.
After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we vacate Hamilton‘s sentence and remand for resentencing for the district court to consider Hamilton‘s criminal-history argument in the first instance. We express no opinion as to the merits of this argument, and we note that it is unclear from the record whether Hamilton was convicted under a portion of the statute that has been ruled unconstitutional. Counsel‘s motion to withdraw is denied.
Jeffrey Reuter, Pro Se
Denise Garrison McElvein, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General‘s Office, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendants-Appellees John N. Borbonus, State of Missouri
Michael Edward Hughes, Saint Louis, MO, Lacey McCauley Smith, St. Louis County Counselor‘s Office, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendant-Appellee St. Louis County, Missouri
Before BENTON, MURPHY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Jeffrey Reuter appeals following the dis-