Willie B. Johnson v. Ernest J. Owen ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 96-1156
    ___________
    Willie B. Johnson,                        *
    *
    Appellant,                  *
    *
    v.                                   *
    *   Appeal from the United States
    Ernest J. Owen, Industries                *   District Court for the
    Supervisor, Missouri Training             *   Eastern District of Missouri.
    Center for Men; Roy D. Hopkins,           *
    Industries Supervisor, Missouri       *           [UNPUBLISHED]
    Training Center for Men; Jimmie       *
    M. Jones; Dick D. Moore,                  *
    *
    Appellees.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted:    March 25, 1997
    Filed:   April 7, 1997
    ___________
    Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Willie B. Johnson, a Missouri inmate, appeals the district court’s
    judgment for defendants following a bench trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
    action.   Johnson challenges the district court’s substantive conclusions,
    and argues the court violated his due process rights by issuing its
    judgment five and one-half years after the bench trial.
    Because Johnson did not provide a transcript and did not request one
    at government expense, we cannot review the district court’s factual
    findings.     See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2); Meroney v.
    Delta Int’l Mach. Corp., 
    18 F.3d 1436
    , 1437 (8th Cir. 1994).          Accepting
    those findings as correct, we conclude no error of law appears.           As to
    Johnson’s timeliness claim, although the delay was considerable, Johnson
    has failed to show the delay prejudiced him or undermined the reliability
    of the magistrate judge’s findings.    See Petrilli v. Dreschel, 
    94 F.3d 325
    ,
    328-29    (7th   Cir.   1996)   (thirty-seven   month   delay   not   inherently
    prejudicial; absent prejudice court will not order new trial); Keller v.
    United States, 
    38 F.3d 16
    , 21 (1st Cir. 1994) (eight-year delay did not
    demonstrate district court had not performed decision-making responsibility
    with care; “appellate attention [must] remain focused on ensuring that
    trial court findings, despite inordinate decision-making delay, [are
    not]squandered unless their reliability has been undermined”).          We thus
    affirm.   See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-