Filed: Dec. 14, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 05-3388 _ Wayne Allen Bauer, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Joe Powell, Deputy Sheriff for Benton * Western District of Arkansas. County, Arkansas, in his official and * individual capacities, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: December 6, 2006 Filed: December 14, 2006 _ Before MURPHY, BYE and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Wayne Allen Bauer appeals from the district court’s
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 05-3388 _ Wayne Allen Bauer, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Joe Powell, Deputy Sheriff for Benton * Western District of Arkansas. County, Arkansas, in his official and * individual capacities, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: December 6, 2006 Filed: December 14, 2006 _ Before MURPHY, BYE and MELLOY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Wayne Allen Bauer appeals from the district court’s1..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 05-3388
___________
Wayne Allen Bauer, *
*
Appellant, *
*
v. * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
Joe Powell, Deputy Sheriff for Benton * Western District of Arkansas.
County, Arkansas, in his official and *
individual capacities, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: December 6, 2006
Filed: December 14, 2006
___________
Before MURPHY, BYE and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Wayne Allen Bauer appeals from the district court’s1 grant of summary
judgment in favor of Joe Powell in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Bauer claimed that
Powell, a patrol officer for Benton County, Arkansas, violated Bauer’s civil rights by
causing his probable cause hearing to be unreasonably delayed following his arrest.
1
The Honorable Beverly Stites-Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the
Western 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).
Having carefully reviewed the record de novo, see Jacob-Mua v. Veneman,
289 F.3d
517, 520 (8th Cir. 2002), we find the district court’s analysis to be correct, thorough,
and well-reasoned. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-