Shirl Driver v. Michael Groose etc. ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 01-1565
    ___________
    Shirl D. Driver,                     *
    *
    Appellant,               *
    *
    v.                              * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    Michael Groose; Allen Luebbers;      * Eastern District of Missouri.
    Nancy Belt; Cyndi Prudden; Robert    *
    Capowski,                            *      [PUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellees.               *
    ___________
    Submitted: November 7, 2001
    Filed: December 13, 2001
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Shirl D. Driver, a Missouri inmate, alleged that prison officials violated her
    first- amendment, due-process, and equal-protection rights when they censored a
    music- cassette tape she had ordered through the mail, purportedly because the tape
    was determined to be a security risk under the prison’s mail policy. The District
    Court1 granted summary judgment for defendants and denied Driver’s post-judgment
    motion. Driver appeals.
    Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we agree that
    summary judgment was proper, essentially for the reasons stated by the District
    Court. See Liebe v. Norton, 
    157 F.3d 574
    , 578 (8th Cir. 1998) (de novo review).
    Concerning Driver's equal-protection claim, though her pleadings show that she is a
    member of a protected class, to avoid summary judgment it was incumbent upon her
    to come forward with evidence that would create a triable issue of fact as to whether
    she had been treated differently from similarly situated white inmates, and this she
    failed to do. In particular, her evidence does not show that any white inmates were
    allowed to receive through the mail, uncensored, the same explicit-lyric tape that she
    had ordered. There being no error in the District Court's grant of summary judgment,
    we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Driver’s post-
    judgment motion. See Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 
    862 F.2d 161
    , 169 (8th Cir. 1988)
    (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    1
    The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-1565

Filed Date: 12/13/2001

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2015