Brown v. Kempker

Eighth Circuit

Brown v. Kempker

122 F. App'x 295

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 4, 2005

DocketNo. 04-2218

StatusPublished

This text of 122 F. App'x 295 (Brown v. Kempker) 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

Brown v. Kempker, 122 F. App'x 295 (8th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal after remand, George Brown, Jr. challenges the district court’s¹ adverse grant of summary judgment and denial of leave to amend in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which he brought a claim of retaliation. Upon careful de novo review, see Kincaid v. City of Omaha, 378 F.3d 799, 803-04 (8th Cir.2004), we conclude the district court properly granted summary judgment because there was no evidence that defendant Gary Kempker was personally involved in the alleged retaliation or was made aware that Mr. Brown was raising complaints of retaliation by prison staff. See McDowell v. Jones, 990 F.2d 433, 435 (8th Cir.1993). We also conclude that the denial of Mr. Brown’s motion for leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

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

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal after remand, George Brown, Jr. challenges the district court’s¹ adverse grant of summary judgment and denial of leave to amend in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which he brought a claim of retaliation. Upon careful de novo review, see Kincaid v. City of Omaha, 378 F.3d 799, 803-04 (8th Cir.2004), we conclude the district court properly granted summary judgment because there was no evidence that defendant Gary Kempker was personally involved in the alleged retaliation or was made aware that Mr. Brown was raising complaints of retaliation by prison staff. See McDowell v. Jones, 990 F.2d 433, 435 (8th Cir.1993). We also conclude that the denial of Mr. Brown’s motion for leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 F. App'x 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-kempker-ca8-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack