Arkansas inmate Tyrone Ellis appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which he alleged that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Upon careful de novo review, see Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, *509 598 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review), we conclude that summary judgment was proper because, as explained by the district court, Ellis failed to show that his skin rash was “serious,” or that any delay in treatment had a detrimental effect on his condition. See Fourte v. Faulkner Cty., Ark., 746 F.3d 384, 387 (8th Cir. 2014); see also Jackson v. Riebold, 815 F.3d 1114, 1119-20 (8th Cir. 2016).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.