Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01736/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01736-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1736

___________

Scott Andrew Kohser, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Laurie Merth; Launie Zaffke; *

Robert Feneis; Jeffery Shorba; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Shelby Richardson; Steve Huot; *

John Fabian; Marty McHugh; Ben *

Brieschke; Jeffery Peterson; Ron *

Degidio; Linda Rose; Terry Katusky; *

Randy Tenge; James Kaul; Thomas *

Berner, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 24, 2007

Filed: October 11, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 06-1736 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/11/2007 Entry ID: 3360739
1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Susan

Richard Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

-2-

Minnesota prisoner Scott Andrew Kohser appeals the district court’s1

 adverse

grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 

Upon de novo review, see Entzi v. Redmann, 485 F.3d 998, 1001 (8th Cir.

2007), we affirm. We agree with the district court that Kohser’s legal mail, access to

courts, Fifth Amendment, due process, and retaliation claims failed on their merits.

See McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24, 35-36 (2002) (Fifth Amendment); Sandin v. Conner,

515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995) (due process); Entzi, 485 F.3d at 1005 (court access);

Gardner v. Howard, 109 F.3d 427, 430-31 (8th Cir. 1997) (legal mail); Cornell v.

Woods, 69 F.3d 1383, 1387-89 (8th Cir. 1995) (retaliation). Further, we conclude that

summary judgment was not prematurely granted, see Robinson v. Terex Corp., 439

F.3d 465, 467 (8th Cir. 2006); and that the district court did not abuse its discretion

in dismissing individual-capacity claims against defendants Ben Brieschke and Jeffery

Shorba, and in denying Kohser’s motion for a default judgment against these

defendants, see Harris v. St. Louis Police Dep’t, 164 F.3d 1085, 1086 (8th Cir. 1998)

(per curiam); Bullock v. United States, 160 F.3d 441, 442 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We grant Kohser’s motions on

appeal for verification and to file a Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) letter

and a supplemental appendix. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1736 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/11/2007 Entry ID: 3360739