Filed: Jun. 11, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-3043 _ Leonard Wrieden, also known as * Lennie Wrieden, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. John Lambert, Lt., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. * _ Submitted: June 3, 1997 Filed: June 11, 1997 _ Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Leonard Wrieden, an Iowa inmate, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that correct
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-3043 _ Leonard Wrieden, also known as * Lennie Wrieden, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. John Lambert, Lt., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. * _ Submitted: June 3, 1997 Filed: June 11, 1997 _ Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Leonard Wrieden, an Iowa inmate, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that correcti..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 96-3043
___________
Leonard Wrieden, also known as *
Lennie Wrieden, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Southern District of Iowa.
John Lambert, Lt., *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: June 3, 1997
Filed: June 11, 1997
___________
Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Leonard Wrieden, an Iowa inmate, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint
alleging that correctional officer John Lambert injured Wrieden while using a pain-
compliance hold on him. After appointing counsel for Wrieden and holding a bench
trial, the district court1 entered judgment for Lambert, and this appeal followed. Having
carefully reviewed the parties' briefs and the record, we affirm the judgment of the
1
The Honorable Celeste F. Bremer, United States Magistrate Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by
consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
district court and conclude that an extended opinion would have no precedential value.
See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-