Filed: Feb. 07, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 05-3849 _ Kennith S. Stoehr, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Tim Reisch, Secretary of Corrections; * District of South Dakota. Daryl R. Slykhuis, Deputy Warden; * Doug Weber, Warden, South Dakota * [UNPUBLISHED] State Penitentiary; Rodney Brockoft, * Lt. in charge of DHO; South Dakota * Department of Corrections, * Appellees. * _ Submitted: February 2, 2007 Filed: February 7, 2007 _ Before
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 05-3849 _ Kennith S. Stoehr, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Tim Reisch, Secretary of Corrections; * District of South Dakota. Daryl R. Slykhuis, Deputy Warden; * Doug Weber, Warden, South Dakota * [UNPUBLISHED] State Penitentiary; Rodney Brockoft, * Lt. in charge of DHO; South Dakota * Department of Corrections, * Appellees. * _ Submitted: February 2, 2007 Filed: February 7, 2007 _ Before R..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 05-3849
___________
Kennith S. Stoehr, *
*
Appellant, *
*
v. * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
Tim Reisch, Secretary of Corrections; * District of South Dakota.
Daryl R. Slykhuis, Deputy Warden; *
Doug Weber, Warden, South Dakota * [UNPUBLISHED]
State Penitentiary; Rodney Brockoft, *
Lt. in charge of DHO; South Dakota *
Department of Corrections, *
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: February 2, 2007
Filed: February 7, 2007
___________
Before RILEY, MAGILL, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Kennith S. Stoehr appeals the adverse grant of summary judgment entered by
the district court1 in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Following de novo review, we agree
with the district court that defendants’ uncontroverted evidence showed Stoehr’s due
1
The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District
of South Dakota.
process rights were not violated at his prison disciplinary proceedings. We also find
no abuse of discretion in the denial of Stoehr’s motion for counsel. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-