Archie Bear v. Tracy Dietsch

Eighth Circuit

Archie Bear v. Tracy Dietsch

630 F. App'x 645

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 26, 2016

Docket15-1800

StatusUnpublished

This text of 630 F. App'x 645 (Archie Bear v. Tracy Dietsch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Archie Bear v. Tracy Dietsch, 630 F. App'x 645 (8th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Iowa inmate Archie Bear appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. On appeal, he maintains that Iowa officials — by enforcing a policy that affected inmate access to religious services— violated his free exercise and equal protection rights, and violated a state statute.

Regarding the free exercise claim, we note that Mr. Bear’s complaint did not specify his faith, his beliefs under his faith, or how the policy in question conflicted with his beliefs. Regarding his equal protection claim, we note that there was no evidence in the record indicating that-differences in treatment were motivated by intentional or purposeful discrimination. Thus, upon careful de novo review, we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted. See Brooks v. Roy, 776 F.3d 957, 960 (8th Cir.2015) (discussing free exercise claims); Patel v. U.S. Bur. of Prisons, 515 F.3d 807, 815-16 (8th Cir.2008) (discussing equal protection claims); Weir v. Nix, 114 F.3d 817, 821 n. 7 (8th Cir.1997) (violation of state statute, without more, is insufficient to establish § 1983 claim); see also Fullington v. Pfizer, Inc., 720 F.3d 739, 747 (8th Cir.2013) (court of appeals may affirm for any reason supported by record). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Edward J. McManus, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Iowa inmate Archie Bear appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. On appeal, he maintains that Iowa officials — by enforcing a policy that affected inmate access to religious services— violated his free exercise and equal protection rights, and violated a state statute.

Regarding the free exercise claim, we note that Mr. Bear’s complaint did not specify his faith, his beliefs under his faith, or how the policy in question conflicted with his beliefs. Regarding his equal protection claim, we note that there was no evidence in the record indicating that-differences in treatment were motivated by intentional or purposeful discrimination. Thus, upon careful de novo review, we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted. See Brooks v. Roy, 776 F.3d 957, 960 (8th Cir.2015) (discussing free exercise claims); Patel v. U.S. Bur. of Prisons, 515 F.3d 807, 815-16 (8th Cir.2008) (discussing equal protection claims); Weir v. Nix, 114 F.3d 817, 821 n. 7 (8th Cir.1997) (violation of state statute, without more, is insufficient to establish § 1983 claim); see also Fullington v. Pfizer, Inc., 720 F.3d 739, 747 (8th Cir.2013) (court of appeals may affirm for any reason supported by record). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Edward J. McManus, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

630 F. App'x 645, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/archie-bear-v-tracy-dietsch-ca8-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack