The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
11-1232•Carl Stanley Turner v. Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction
11-1232Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitAug 29, 2014
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-1410
___________________________
Carl Stanley Turner
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Danny Burl, Warden,
E.A.R.U., Arkansas Department of Correction; Todd Ball, Assistant Warden,
E.A.R.U., Arkansas Department of Correction; Valerie Westbrook, Classification
Supervisor, E.A.R.U., Arkansas Department of Correction; Moses Jackson, Chief
of Security, E.A.R.U., Arkansas Department of Correction; Paulette Green,
Classification Supervisor, E.A.R.U., Arkansas Department of Correction
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena
____________
Submitted: August 22, 2014
Filed: August 29, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
-- 1 of 2 --
Carl Turner appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having viewed the record in favor of Turner as the
nonmoving party, we conclude, upon careful de novo review, that the district court
correctly determined that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that the
defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Joseph v. Allen, 712
F.3d 1222, 1225 (8th Cir. 2013) (this court reviews district court’s grant of summary
judgment de novo, viewing all evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor
of nonmoving party; summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of
material fact and moving party is entitled to judgment as matter of law). Accordingly,
we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1The Honorable D. P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable
Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of
Arkansas.
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.