Carl Willis v. Sebastian Co. Sheriff F.Willis, et al

Filing 920110214

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-1878 ___________ Carl Edward Willis, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Arkansas. Sebastian County Sheriff Frank * Atkinson; Moulder, Guard, Sebastian * [UNPUBLISHED] County Detention Center; Detention * Deputy Jacob Fink, Guard, Sebastian * County Detention Center; Restine, * Guard, Sebastian County Detention * Center; Officer Paul, Night * Supervisor, Sebastian County * Detention Center; Lt. Jackson, * Assistant Jail Administrator * Sebastian County Detention Center; * Capt Conger, Jail Administrator; * Guard Reilly; Guard Dutton; Crystal * Reed; Anita Bass, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: February 3, 2011 Filed: February 14, 2011 ___________ Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM.

Inmate Carl Edward Willis appeals the district court's1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action following an evidentiary hearing. As to the claims Willis has not abandoned on appeal, see Griffith v. City of Des Moines, 387 F.3d 733, 739 (8th Cir. 2004), and that warrant our review, see Meyers v. Starke, 420 F. 3d 738, 743 (8th Cir. 2005) (to be reviewable, issue must be presented in brief with some specificity), we have carefully reviewed the record and considered Willis's arguments for reversal. We conclude that the claims at issue on appeal were properly dismissed following the evidentiary hearing. See Choate v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1370, 1373 & n.1 (8th Cir. 1993) (standard of review).2 Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. We note that early in the case Willis's motion for a jury trial was denied as untimely, a ruling Willis does not challenge on appeal. -22

1