Strickland v. Delo

Eighth Circuit

Strickland v. Delo

44 F.3d 710, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 538, 1995 WL 10818

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided January 13, 1995·No. No. 94-1669·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Bernard Strickland, a Missouri inmate, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous officials at Potosí Correctional Center and four John Does. Strickland asserted constitutional claims based on disciplinary and other action taken against him beginning in November 1989. The district court¹ granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, 758 F.Supp. 1319, and Strickland appeals.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir.R. 47B. Strickland’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Bernard Strickland, a Missouri inmate, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous officials at Potosí Correctional Center and four John Does. Strickland asserted constitutional claims based on disciplinary and other action taken against him beginning in November 1989. The district court¹ granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, 758 F.Supp. 1319, and Strickland appeals.

After careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir.R. 47B. Strickland’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

Strickland v. Delo, 44 F.3d 710, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 538, 1995 WL 10818 (8th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

44 F.3d 710 (Strickland v. Delo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related