United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-1397 ___________________________

Andrew Alexander

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Dallas County Detention Center

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant

Dusty Dodson, Administrator, Dallas County Jail

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

United States Marshal Service

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central ____________

Submitted: October 22, 2021 Filed: November 4, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________

Before BENTON, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.

Andrew Alexander, who was formerly detained at the Dallas County Detention Center, appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. After careful de novo review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude the district court properly granted summary judgment, as the record did not support Alexander’s claims relating to mold and inadequate medical care. See Morris v. Cradduck, 954 F.3d 1055, 1058 (8th Cir. 2020) (standard of review); Morris v. Zefferi, 601 F.3d 805, 809 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting a detainee’s constitutional rights are violated if conditions of confinement amount to punishment). We also conclude Alexander’s vague allegations concerning a spider infestation did not support a conditions-of-confinement claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”). Finally, we conclude Alexander’s official-capacity claim failed, as he did not demonstrate a constitutional violation. See Brockinton v. City of Sherwood, 503 F.3d 667, 674 (8th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Beth M. Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-