Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03189/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03189-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3189

___________

James Johnson, also known as Seifullah *

Aziz Ali Diaab, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Gregory Harmon, Warden, Arkansas * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Department of Correction; Justine *

Minor, Major Disciplinary Hearing *

Officer, Arkansas Department of * [UNPUBLISHED]

Correction; J. D. Kleiner, Field *

Major, Arkansas Department of *

Correction; Robert Clark, Major *

Disciplinary Hearing Officer *

Administrator, Arkansas Department *

of Correction; Larry Norris, Director, *

Arkansas Department of Correction; *

K. Waddle, Major Disciplinary Hearing *

Officer, Arkansas Department of *

Correction; V. Kelly, Correctional *

Officer II, Maximum Security Unit *

at Tucker, Arkansas Department of *

Correction; Ray Hobbs, Deputy *

Assistant Director, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; Rick L. *

Toney, Warden, Arkansas Department *

of Correction; F. Preston, Ms., Unit *

Property Control Officer, Varner Unit, *

Arkansas Department of Correction; *

Freyder, Mr., Chaplain, Arkansas *

Department of Correction, *

*

Appellees. *

Appellate Case: 05-3189 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/14/2006 Entry ID: 2109241
1

The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable J. Thomas Ray, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Arkansas.

-2-

___________

Submitted: November 1, 2006

Filed: November 14, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate James Johnson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against

employees of the Arkansas Department of Correction, alleging he was denied due

process, equal protection, and freedom of religion. The district court1

 dismissed the

action following an evidentiary hearing.

Because Johnson did not make a jury demand, we review the district court’s

factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo. See Choate v.

Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1370, 1373 & n.1 (8th Cir. 1993). After careful review of the record,

we find no error in the district court’s well-reasoned decision, and we affirm. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3189 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/14/2006 Entry ID: 2109241