Case ID: f-appx_242/html/0369-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William BRADFORD, Appellant, v. Michelle WHITWORTH, Appellee.
    No. 06-3095.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 7, 2007.
    Filed: Sept. 17, 2007.
    William Bradford, Farmington, MO, pro se.
    Dana C. Ceresia, Attorney General’s Office, for Appellee.
    Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

William Bradford, a detainee at the Missouri Sexual Offender Treatment Center, appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Michelle Whitworth, a registered nurse. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Senty-Haugen v. Goodno, 462 F.3d 876, 885 (8th Cir.2006), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2048, 167 L.Ed.2d 780 (2007) (standard of review), we agree with the district court that Nurse Whitworth’s decision to place restrictions on Bradford for refusing to obey certain rules was a professional decision entitled to deference, see Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 323-25, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982); and that Bradford was provided adequate procedural protections, see Senty-Haugen, 462 F.3d at 887-88 (due process requirements are flexible and specific to each situation; most important mechanisms for ensuring due process are notice of factual basis leading to deprivation and fair opportunity for rebuttal).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.