Kendrick Story v. Mark Cashion , 578 F. App'x 617 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 14-1724
    ___________________________
    Kendrick C. Story
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    Mark Cashion, Warden, Randall L. Williams Unit; Emma Waters, Kitchen
    Supervisor, Randall L. Williams Unit
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff
    ____________
    Submitted: September 22, 2014
    Filed: September 25, 2014
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Arkansas Department of Correction inmate Kendrick Story appeals the district
    court’s1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against warden Mark Cashion and
    kitchen supervisor Emma Waters. After careful review, see Hintz v. JPMorgan Chase
    Bank, N.A., 
    686 F.3d 505
    , 509 (8th Cir. 2012) (dismissals based on res judicata are
    reviewed de novo); Levy v. Ohl, 
    477 F.3d 988
    , 991 (8th Cir. 2007) (dismissals for
    failure to state a claim are reviewed de novo), we agree with the district court that
    Story’s claim against Cashion is barred by res judicata, see First Nat’l Bank Sioux
    Falls v. First Nat’l Bank of S.D., 
    679 F.3d 763
    , 767 (8th Cir. 2012) (res judicata bars
    relitigation if court of competent jurisdiction issued final judgment on merits of same
    cause of action involving same parties), and his claim against Waters failed to state
    a claim upon which relief may be granted, see Pagels v. Morrison, 
    335 F.3d 736
    , 740
    (8th Cir. 2003) (negligence does not establish a failure-to-protect claim); Prater v.
    Dahm, 
    89 F.3d 538
    , 541 (8th Cir. 1996) (duty to protect inmates from attacks requires
    that prison officials take reasonable measures to abate substantial risks of serious
    harm of which they are aware); Prosser v. Ross, 
    70 F.3d 1005
    , 1008 (8th Cir. 1995)
    (prison guards have no duty to intervene in armed altercation between inmates if
    intervention places guards at risk of physical harm). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th
    Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Joe
    J. Volpe, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
    -2-