Gary Brunzo v. Harold Clarke , 56 F. App'x 753 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                    United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 02-2553
    ___________
    Gary J. Brunzo,                          *
    *
    Appellant,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court for the
    * District of Nebraska.
    Harold W. Clarke, Director of            *
    Corrections; Mike Kenny, Chief           *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Executive Officer; M. Rose,              *
    Administrator/Supervisor; Scott          *
    Isherwood, Unit #1, Housing Unit         *
    Manager; Unknown Zeisset, Sergeant, *
    Investigating Officer; Steve Burta,      *
    Case Manager; J. L. Darling,             *
    Classification/Programs; Layne           *
    Gissler, Segregation Officer/Review      *
    Chair; Jason Simmon, Board Member; *
    Randy Crosby, Board Member; Scott        *
    Marshall, Board Member; Frank X.         *
    Hopkins, Associate Director; Robert      *
    Madsen, Board Member,                    *
    *
    Appellees.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: March 5, 2003
    Filed: March 6, 2003
    ___________
    Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Nebraska inmate Gary Brunzo brought this 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action, claiming
    that his continued placement in administrative confinement violated his Fifth and
    Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court1 granted defendants summary
    judgment, and denied Brunzo’s motion for reconsideration. Brunzo appeals. After
    careful review of the record, we affirm.
    Under our cases, the alleged conditions of Brunzo’s confinement simply do not
    amount to an atypical and significant hardship relative to the ordinary incidents of
    prison life. See Portley-El v. Brill, 
    288 F.3d 1063
    , 1065 (8th Cir. 2002); Kennedy v.
    Blankenship, 
    100 F.3d 640
    , 642-43 & n.2 (8th Cir. 1996). As a result, summary
    judgment was appropriate, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in
    denying reconsideration, see Smith v. Chem. Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., 
    285 F.3d 750
    ,
    752 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review for motion for reconsideration).
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    1
    The HONORABLE RICHARD G. KOPF, Chief Judge, United States District
    Court for the District of Nebraska.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-2553

Citation Numbers: 56 F. App'x 753

Judges: Bowman, Wollman, Loken

Filed Date: 3/6/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024