Michael R. Schneider v. Larry Norris

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedApril 25, 2000
Docket99-3470
StatusUnpublished

This text of Michael R. Schneider v. Larry Norris (Michael R. Schneider v. Larry Norris) 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
Michael R. Schneider v. Larry Norris, (8th Cir. 2000).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________

No. 99-3470 ___________

Michael R. Schneider, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas * Eastern District of Arkansas. Department of Correction; Ray Hobbs, * Assistant Director, Arkansas * [UNPUBLISHED] Department of Correction; Max * Mobley, Director, Medical Services, * Arkansas Department of Correction; * Sara McQuilliams, Warden, Delta * Regional Unit, Arkansas Department * of Correction; John H. Whaley, III, * Chief Security Officer, Delta Regional * Unit, Arkansas Department of * Correction; Carl Lee Griswold, Captain, * Delta Regional Unit, Arkansas * Department of Correction; Stacy * Patton, Sergeant, Movement & Control * Officer, Delta Regional Unit, Arkansas * Department of Correction, * * Appellees. * ___________

Submitted: April 20, 2000 Filed: April 25, 2000 ___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM ___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Schneider, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the district court’s1 order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action following an evidentiary hearing. After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, see Choate v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1370, 1373 & n.1 (8th Cir. 1993) (standard of review), we conclude the district court did not err in dismissing Schneider’s First Amendment claim, because the grooming policy at issue was reasonable under the four factors enumerated in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89- 91 (1987). See Dunavent v. Moore, 907 F.2d 77, 79 (8th Cir. 1990). In addition, we conclude the district court did not err in dismissing Schneider’s equal protection claim, see Rouse v. Benson, 193 F.3d 936, 942-43 (8th Cir. 1999), or his Eighth Amendment claim, see Berryhill v. Schriro, 137 F.3d 1073, 1076 (8th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

1 The Honorable William R. Wilson, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerry Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2-

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Michael R. Schneider v. Larry Norris, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-r-schneider-v-larry-norris-ca8-2000.