Filed: Dec. 02, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 07-2858 _ Ronald T. Seaworth, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Red Lake County; Mitch Bernstein, * Sheriff; Brad Johnson, Chief Deputy * [UNPUBLISHED] Sheriff; Louisville Township Board; * John Stich, Chairman; Paul Heng; * Arley Schultz; Jean Beyer; Jack * McKeever, all in their personal and * professional capacities, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: November 7, 2008 Fil
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 07-2858 _ Ronald T. Seaworth, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Red Lake County; Mitch Bernstein, * Sheriff; Brad Johnson, Chief Deputy * [UNPUBLISHED] Sheriff; Louisville Township Board; * John Stich, Chairman; Paul Heng; * Arley Schultz; Jean Beyer; Jack * McKeever, all in their personal and * professional capacities, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: November 7, 2008 File..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-2858
___________
Ronald T. Seaworth, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of Minnesota.
Red Lake County; Mitch Bernstein, *
Sheriff; Brad Johnson, Chief Deputy * [UNPUBLISHED]
Sheriff; Louisville Township Board; *
John Stich, Chairman; Paul Heng; *
Arley Schultz; Jean Beyer; Jack *
McKeever, all in their personal and *
professional capacities, *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: November 7, 2008
Filed: December 2, 2008
___________
Before MELLOY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Ronald T. Seaworth appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully considered Seaworth’s
1
The Honorable Raymond L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the
District of Minnesota, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent
of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
arguments for reversal and conducted de novo review of the record, see Johnson v.
Outboard Marine Corp.,
172 F.3d 531, 535 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review), we
agree with the district court that summary judgment was warranted. Accordingly, we
affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-