Case ID: f-appx_690/html/0448-01.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

Ronald K. JORDAN Plaintiff-Appellant v. Brian D. HALL, Correctional Officer, PCC, Individually; Joey Arcand, Caseworker, PCC, Individually Defendants-Appellees Paul Johnson, Caseworker, PCC, Individually; Clifford Owens, FUM, PCC, Individually Defendants
    No. 15-3424
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 1, 2017
    Filed: June 6, 2017
    Ronald K. Jordan, Pro Se
    Katherine S. Walsh, Attorney General’s Office, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Ronald K. Jordan appeals following final judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Mr. Jordan challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant Joey Arcand; the verdict in favor of defendant Brian D. Hall after a bench trial; and several pretrial and post-trial orders. We agree with the district court that there were no jury issues on Mr. Jordan’s due process claim against Mr. Arcand. See Mason v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 559 F.3d 880, 884-85 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing de novo grant of summary judgment, viewing evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of non-moving party). Further, we find no clear error in the district court’s finding that Mr. Jordan did not show that Mr. Hall — in conducting searches of, and confiscating items from, Mr. Jordan’s person or cell — was acting in retaliation for Mr. Jordan’s engagement in protected activity. See Kaplan v. Mayo Clinic, 847 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2017) (following bench trial, this court reviews de novo legal conclusions, and for clear error factual findings); Wright v. St. Vincent Health Sys., 730 F.3d 732, 739 (8th Cir. 2013) (district court’s credibility findings in bench trial, like jury’s credibility findings in jury trial, are virtually unassailable on appeal); Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439, 449-50 (8th Cir. 2010) (elements of retaliation claim). Finally, as to Mr. Jordan’s remaining challenges to district court orders, they provide no basis for reversal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R.47B 
      
      . The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.