Paul M. Gordon v. Leca Ledbetter


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: James B. Loken, Kermit E. Bye and Jane Kelly (UNPUBLISHED) [4391968] [15-3047]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-3047 ___________________________ Paul M. Gordon lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Leca Ledbetter, Court Reporter lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs ____________ Submitted: April 19, 2016 Filed: April 26, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Appellate Case: 15-3047 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2016 Entry ID: 4391968 Arkansas inmate Paul Gordon appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which he claimed that court reporter Leca Ledbetter had altered transcripts of the hearings in several of Gordon’s state court proceedings. Upon careful de novo review, see Jones v. Frost, 770 F.3d 1183, 1185 (8th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2315 (2015), we conclude that summary judgment was proper because, as explained by the district court, the record contains no explanation as to how the alleged alterations affected the outcome of any of the proceedings at issue, see Tedford v. Hepting, 990 F.2d 745, 747 (3d Cir. 1993); Colyer v. Ryles, 827 F.2d 315, 316 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -2- Appellate Case: 15-3047 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2016 Entry ID: 4391968

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?