Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03095/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03095-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Bradford
Appellant
Michelle Whitworth
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3095

___________

William Bradford, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Michelle Whitworth, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 7, 2007

Filed: September 17, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

William Bradford, a detainee at the Missouri Sexual Offender Treatment

Center, appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Michelle Whitworth, a registered nurse. Having carefully

reviewed the record, see Senty-Haugen v. Goodno, 462 F.3d 876, 885 (8th Cir. 2006),

cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 2048 (2007) (standard of review), we agree with the district

court that Nurse Whitworth’s decision to place restrictions on Bradford for refusing

to obey certain rules was a professional decision entitled to deference, see Youngberg

Appellate Case: 06-3095 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/17/2007 Entry ID: 3352208
-2-

v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 323-25 (1982); and that Bradford was provided adequate

procedural protections, see Senty-Haugen, 462 F.3d at 887-88 (due process

requirements are flexible and specific to each situation; most important mechanisms

for ensuring due process are notice of factual basis leading to deprivation and fair

opportunity for rebuttal). 

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3095 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/17/2007 Entry ID: 3352208