Filed: Dec. 06, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-2739 _ Russell M. Boles, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Corrections Corporation of America; * Transcor America, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. * _ Submitted: November 4, 1999 Filed: December 6, 1999 _ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Russell M. Boles appeals the district court&s1 orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 19
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-2739 _ Russell M. Boles, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Corrections Corporation of America; * Transcor America, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. * _ Submitted: November 4, 1999 Filed: December 6, 1999 _ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Russell M. Boles appeals the district court&s1 orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 198..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 99-2739
___________
Russell M. Boles, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of Minnesota.
Corrections Corporation of America; *
Transcor America, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: November 4, 1999
Filed: December 6, 1999
___________
Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Russell M. Boles appeals the district court&s1 orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint against a prisoner-transport company and a prison-management
company, and denying his subsequent motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b). Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the district
1
The HONORABLE DONOVAN W. FRANK, United States District Judge for
the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the
HONORABLE JONATHAN G. LEBEDOFF, United States Magistrate Judge for the
District of Minnesota.
court properly dismissed the complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1), for the reasons
explained in the district court&s order. Further, we conclude that extraordinary
circumstances do not exist in this case to warrant Rule 60(b) relief, and thus the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying such relief. Accordingly, we affirm. See
8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-