Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02105/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02105-0/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. 04-2105

___________

T. W. Johnson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Natalie Jones, Correctional Officer, *

East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Patricia Stokes, Correctional Officer, *

East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; *

Jamaal Davenport, Correctional Officer, *

EARU, ADC (originally sued as *

Davenport), *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 19, 2005

Filed: May 24, 2005

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 04-2105 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2005 Entry ID: 1906383
1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable H.

David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

Arkansas inmate T. W. Johnson appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the

record, see Jolly v. Knudsen, 205 F.3d 1094, 1096 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of

review), we affirm. 

We agree with the district court that Johnson cannot seek damages based on his

assertion that defendants failed to protect him from the possibility he could have been

the victim when one inmate attacked another. See Doe v. Welborn, 110 F.3d 520,

523 (7th Cir. 1997). Further, Johnson’s assertion that defendant Officer Natalie

Johnson retaliated against him and conspired with others to retaliate against him

because Johnson ended an affair with her does not state an actionable claim of

retaliation or conspiracy. See Nei v. Dooley, 372 F.3d 1003, 1007 (8th Cir. 2004)

(per curiam) (conduct that retaliates against exercise of constitutionally protected

right is actionable); Askew v. Millerd, 191 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1999) (to prove

§ 1983 conspiracy claim, plaintiff must show constitutional deprivation occurred). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2105 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2005 Entry ID: 1906383