Filed: May 03, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 03-2278 _ Randy Drinkwalter, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Harold Clarke; Mike Kenney; Douglas * K. Diltz; Frank X. Hopkins; Teresa * [UNPUBLISHED] Predmore; Kimberly L. Cockrell; * Robert C. Ryan; Officer McPherrin, in * their official and individual capacities, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: April 28, 2004 Filed: May 3, 2004 _ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, an
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 03-2278 _ Randy Drinkwalter, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Harold Clarke; Mike Kenney; Douglas * K. Diltz; Frank X. Hopkins; Teresa * [UNPUBLISHED] Predmore; Kimberly L. Cockrell; * Robert C. Ryan; Officer McPherrin, in * their official and individual capacities, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: April 28, 2004 Filed: May 3, 2004 _ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and..
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 03-2278 ___________ Randy Drinkwalter, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Harold Clarke; Mike Kenney; Douglas * K. Diltz; Frank X. Hopkins; Teresa * [UNPUBLISHED] Predmore; Kimberly L. Cockrell; * Robert C. Ryan; Officer McPherrin, in * their official and individual capacities, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: April 28, 2004 Filed: May 3, 2004 ___________ Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Nebraska inmate Randy Drinkwalter appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit arising out of a disciplinary conviction (later reversed), which led to his extended confinement in segregation. Appellees have moved for summary 1 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. affirmance. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude dismissal was proper and an extended discussion is not warranted. Accordingly, we grant appellees’ motion and affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
