Ivan Page v. Erica McDowell, et al


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Diana E. Murphy and Lavenski R. Smith (UNPUBLISHED); Denying [4085756-3] motion for appointment of counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Ivan T. Page. [4128245] [13-2259]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2259 ___________________________ Ivan T. Page lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Erica McDowell, Therapist, Missouri Department of Corrections, In Her Official and Individual Capacity; Julie Motley, Director, MOSOP, In Her Official and Individual Capacity; Mariann Atwell, Director, Rehabilitative Services, In Her Official and Individual Capacity; Al Luebbers, Warden, Farmington Correctional Center, In His Official and Individual Capacity; Lynn Calcote, In Her Official and Individual Capacity; Tom Villmer, Warden, Farmington Correctional Center, In His Official and Individual Capacity; Lindell Edmonds, MOSOP, In His Official and Individual Capacity; Elaine Dix, MOSOP, In Her Official and Individual Capacity lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: February 25, 2014 Filed: February 28, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Appellate Case: 13-2259 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2014 Entry ID: 4128245 In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Missouri inmate Ivan Page appeals the district court’s1 adverse summary judgment decisions in favor of Julie Motley,2 and he appeals the district court’s adverse rulings on certain motions he filed in the district court. Also pending are motions for appointment of counsel he filed in this court. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in its summary judgment decisions, in which the court concluded, inter alia, that Page’s due process, retaliation, and ex post facto claims failed as a matter of law. See Green v. Dormire, 691 F.3d 917, 921 (8th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment decision is reviewed de novo); Adams v. Agniel, 405 F.3d 643, 645 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (inmate does not have constitutionally protected liberty interest in possibility of parole, and this court has held that Missouri parole statutes create no liberty interest under state law in parole board’s discretionary decisions); Clark v. Long, 255 F.3d 555, 559 (8th Cir. 2001) (in order to establish violation of constitutional rights under § 1983, plaintiff must prove that defendant’s unconstitutional action was cause in fact of plaintiff’s injury). Furthermore, upon careful review of the district court’s orders disposing of Page’s motions, we find no basis for reversal. See, e.g., Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 637 (8th Cir. 2007) (discovery rulings are reviewed for gross abuse of discretion); Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996) (trial court has broad discretion to decide whether both plaintiff and court will benefit from appointment of counsel). We thus affirm under 8th Cir. R. 47B. In addition, we deny Page’s pending motions for appointment of counsel. __________________________ 1 The Honorable Frederick R. Buckles, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, now retired, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 2 In Page’s original complaint, he named numerous other individuals, all of whom were dismissed preservice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). He does not challenge their dismissal in his appellate brief. See Jasperson v. Purolator Courier Corp., 765 F.2d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 1985) (party’s failure to raise or discuss issue in brief is deemed to be abandonment of that issue). -2Appellate Case: 13-2259 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/28/2014 Entry ID: 4128245

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?