Filed: May 03, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 02-1712 _ Clayton S. Creek, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. South Dakota Department of * Corrections; South Dakota State * [UNPUBLISHED] Penitentiary, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: April 26, 2002 Filed: May 3, 2002 _ Before BOWMAN, BRIGHT, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. South Dakota inmate Clayton S. Creek appeals the district court's1 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 02-1712 _ Clayton S. Creek, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. South Dakota Department of * Corrections; South Dakota State * [UNPUBLISHED] Penitentiary, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: April 26, 2002 Filed: May 3, 2002 _ Before BOWMAN, BRIGHT, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. South Dakota inmate Clayton S. Creek appeals the district court's1 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 02-1712
___________
Clayton S. Creek, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of South Dakota.
South Dakota Department of *
Corrections; South Dakota State * [UNPUBLISHED]
Penitentiary, *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: April 26, 2002
Filed: May 3, 2002
___________
Before BOWMAN, BRIGHT, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
South Dakota inmate Clayton S. Creek appeals the district court's1 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action. Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that the
only named defendants–the South Dakota Department of Corrections and the South
Dakota State Penitentiary–are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from
1
The Honorable John B. Jones, United States District Judge for the District of
South Dakota.
Creek's suit. See P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.,
506 U.S.
139, 144 (1993).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
We also deny the pending motion.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-