Jimmie McGee-El v. Chandra Hartegan , 382 F. App'x 530 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 09-3758
    ___________
    Jimmie T. McGee-El,                  *
    *
    Appellant,              *
    *
    v.                             *
    *
    Chandra Hartegan, Caseworker, NECC; *
    Tracy Harrison, Librarian II, NECC;  *
    Debra Kelly, Caseworker, NECC; Joel *
    Clover, Corrections Officer I, NECC; *
    James Carter, Functional Unit        *
    Manager, NECC; Carrie Taylor,        *   Appeal from the United States
    Classification Caseworker Assistant, *   District Court for the
    NECC; Kathy Clifton, Functional      *   Eastern District of Missouri.
    Unit Manager, NECC; Michelle         *
    Thompson, Grievance Officer II,      *   [UNPUBLISHED]
    NECC; Unknown Davis, Corrections     *
    Officer II, NECC; Unknown Lambert, *
    Corrections Officer II, NECC; Lori   *
    Calvin, Corrections Officer III/     *
    Committee Member, NECC; Dale         *
    Lucas, Correctional Case Worker;     *
    Chantay Godert, Assistant Warden,    *
    NECC; Thomas Dunn, Deputy Warden, *
    NECC; Jim Moore, Warden, NECC;       *
    Larry Crawford, Director, Missouri   *
    Department of Corrections,           *
    *
    Appellees.              *
    ___________
    Submitted: June 18, 2010
    Filed: June 24, 2010
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Missouri inmate Jimmie McGee-El (McGee) appeals the district court’s1
    dismissal of his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     civil action. After careful de novo review,
    see Strand v. Diversified Collection Serv., Inc., 
    380 F.3d 316
    , 317 (8th Cir. 2004), we
    conclude that (1) McGee’s retaliatory-discipline claims were properly dismissed
    because there was “some evidence” to find him guilty of violating prison rules, see
    Henderson v. Baird, 
    29 F.3d 464
    , 469 (8th Cir. 1994); (2) his due process challenge
    to the disciplinary hearing is also meritless, because McGee failed to show that he had
    a protected liberty interest in avoiding the resulting punishment, see Lomholt v.
    Holder, 
    287 F.3d 683
    , 684 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam); Kennedy v. Blankenship, 
    100 F.3d 640
    , 642-43 & n.2 (8th Cir. 1996); and (3) the district court was not required to
    rule on discovery motions before dismissing the complaint, see First Commercial
    Trust Co. v. Colt’s Mfg. Co., 
    77 F.3d 1081
    , 1083 n.4 (8th Cir. 1996), or to provide
    McGee with a list of deficiencies. Finally we do not consider the claims that either
    have been abandoned or are first raised on appeal.
    Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    -2-