
    Timothy LaPlez DAVIS, Appellant, v. Paul OWENS, Jail Administrator, Fordyce, AR, Appellee, Tim Stewart, Officer, Fordyce County Jail, Defendant, Michael Key, Originally Sued As Key, Appellee.
    No. 11-2878.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 5, 2012.
    Filed: Jan. 25, 2012.
    Timothy LaPlez Davis, Tucker, AR, pro se.
    Clyde Burt Newell, Law Office of C. Burt Newell, Nicholas Rudolph Windle, Hot Springs, AR, for Appellee.
    Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Inmate Timothy LaPlez Davis appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon de novo review of the record, see Holden v. Himer, 663 F.3d 336, 340-41 (8th Cir.2011) (standard of review), we agree with the district court that there were no trialworthy issues on Davis’s failure-to-protect claim, see id. at 340-41 (to establish prison officials failed to prevent harm, inmate must prove he was incarcerated under conditions posing substantial risk of serious harm, and defendants knew of and disregarded excessive risk to inmate’s safety, i.e., they recklessly disregarded known risk); or on his claim arising from the medical care provided for injuries he sustained in the altercation with another inmate, see Christian v. Wagner, 623 F.3d 608, 612-13 (8th Cir.2010) (pretrial detainee must show he suffered from objectively serious medical need which defendants knew of, yet deliberately disregarded). The judgment is affirmed, and we grant appellees’ motion to strike the new document in the addendum to Davis’s reply brief. See Griffin v. Super Valu, 218 F.3d 869, 871 (8th Cir.2000) (declining to consider documents that were not before district court when summary judgment ruling was made). 
      
      . The Honorable Joe J. Volpe, 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).
     
      
      . We decline to address issues that Davis has not sufficiently addressed in his brief. See Blakley v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp., 648 F.3d 921, 933 (8th Cir.2011).
     