Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02014/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02014-0/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. 06-2014

___________

Ollie Williams, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

Jackie Walker, *

*

Appellant, *

*

James Vitale; Timothy N. Davis, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Plaintiffs, * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

v. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Gary B. Kempker; Dora B. Schriro; *

I. Grimes; Bonita Morrow; Gene *

Stubblefield; Cameron Daniels; Joe *

Sampson; Joe Carter; Mark Cain; *

Michael Blandford, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: December 27, 2007

Filed: January 10, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 06-2014 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2008 Entry ID: 3390236
1The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

-2-

Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC) prisoner Jackie Walker appeals

the district court’s1

 adverse judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Following

careful review, we agree with the district court that MDOC’s urinalysis policy, which

provided for random drug testing of the offender population, as well as targeted

testing of offenders who met certain criteria, was not unconstitutional. See Louis v.

Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 437 F.3d 697, 699-701 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 355

(2006); Spence v. Farrier, 807 F.2d 753, 754-56 (8th Cir. 1986). We also conclude

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Walker’s motion for a

new trial, see Buchholz v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 120 F.3d 146, 148 (8th Cir. 1997)

(standard of review; new trial is required only when necessary to avoid miscarriage

of justice), and that Walker’s transfer away from the Missouri Eastern Correctional

Center mooted his request for injunctive relief, see Smith v. Hundley, 190 F.3d 852,

855 (8th Cir. 1999).

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2014 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/10/2008 Entry ID: 3390236