Ingrassia v. Schafer
This text of 533 F. App'x 691 (Ingrassia v. Schafer) 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.
Opinion
Civil detainee Thomas Ingrassia appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment on his claim that defendants restricted his access to exercise and outdoor recreation. After careful de novo review, see Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir.2012) (standard of review), we agree with the district court’s reasons for concluding that defendants did not violate Ingrassia’s constitutional rights and were thus entitled to qualified immunity, see Winslow v. Smith, 696 F.3d 716, 730-31 (8th Cir.2012) (qualified immunity); Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446, 449 (8th Cir.1992) (deprivation-of-exercise claim).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
533 F. App'x 691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingrassia-v-schafer-ca8-2013.