James G. Ellingburg v. Jerry Lloyd, Paramedic, Cummins Unit, Dep't of Corr., State of Arkansas, 491 F.2d 728 (8th Cir. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
James G. Ellingburg v. Jerry Lloyd, Paramedic, Cummins Unit, Dep't of Corr., State of Arkansas, 491 F.2d 728 (8th Cir. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Robert Finney v. Arkansas Bd. of Corr. & Terrell Don Hutto, James C. Ellingburg v. Douglas Nolan, Individually & as an Emp. of the Cummins Unit, Arkansas Dep't of Corr., James C. Ellingburg v. Kenneth G. Taylor, Individually & as a Corr. Officer, Arkansas Bd. of Corr., James C. Ellingburg v. Dan Sewell, Individually & as a Police Captain, Texarkana, Arkansas, Police Dep't, James C. Ellingburg v. Terrell Don Hutto, Comm'r of Corr., State of Arkansas, 505 F.2d 194 (8th Cir. 1974)
How cited ↗
Cited for
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James G. ELLINGBURG, Appellant,
v.
Jerry LLOYD, Paramedic, Cummins Unit, Department of Correction, State of Arkansas, Appellee
73-1910.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Feb 20, 1974.
Published opinion
491 F.2d 728
1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9998
James G. Ellingburg, pro se., Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.
Heaney, Bright, Denney.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

James G. Ellingburg appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 petition. He alleged in the District Court that on October 26, 1973, the paramedic on duty at the Cummins Unit of the Arkansas Department of Corrections denied him “medication for [his] tubercular condition * * * ”.

The District Court, after reviewing its “experience” with the appellant, found:

Petitioner has evidently had tuberculosis in the past, and his present condition calls for medication which is administered to him by paramedical personnel employed at Cummins, including respondent, Jerry Loyd. Petitioner is assigned to duty as a night janitor which is a light job assignment compatible with his physical condition and with his age.
* * * * * *
This time he complains that respondent, Loyd, unreasonably delayed fur[*729] nishing him with medication on October 26, 1973. The Court views the petition as frivolous * * * [1]

We agree with the trial court’s characterization of the petition and affirm its action.

1

. We assume that the District Court was acting pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).