Kenneth Daywitt v. Jodi Harpstead

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 19, 2024
Docket24-1138
StatusUnpublished

This text of Kenneth Daywitt v. Jodi Harpstead (Kenneth Daywitt v. Jodi Harpstead) 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
Kenneth Daywitt v. Jodi Harpstead, (8th Cir. 2024).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-1138 ___________________________

Kenneth Daywitt

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

David Jannetta

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff

Steven Hogy

Merlin Adolphson

Michael Whipple; Peter Lonergan, and others similarly situated; Russell Hatton

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Jodi Harpstead, DHS Commissioner; in their individual and official capacities; Marshall Smith, in their individual and official capacities; Nancy Johnston, in their individual and official capacities; Jim Berg, in their individual and official capacities; Jannine Hebert, in their individual and official capacities; Kevin Moser, in their individual and official capacities; Terry Kniesel, in their individual and official capacities; Raymond Ruotsalainen, in their individual and official capacities

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________

Submitted: September 12, 2024 Filed: September 19, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

The district court1 granted summary judgment in favor of defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by civilly committed detainees in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court, in its thorough and well-reasoned opinion, properly granted summary judgment. See Morris v. Cradduck, 954 F.3d 1055, 1058 (8th Cir. 2020) (reviewing grant of summary judgment de novo). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants’ motion to exclude expert testimony. See Lancaster v. BNSF Ry. Co., 75 F.4th 967, 969 (8th Cir. 2023) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Nancy E. Brasel, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Elizabeth Cowan Wright, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

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

Related

Mark Morris v. Kelley Cradduck
954 F.3d 1055 (Eighth Circuit, 2020)
Rebecca Lancaster v. BNSF Railway Company
75 F.4th 967 (Eighth Circuit, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kenneth Daywitt v. Jodi Harpstead, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenneth-daywitt-v-jodi-harpstead-ca8-2024.