## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-1333

___________ Robert H. Reehten, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Larry Buck, Social Worker; Terry * Eastern District of Missouri. Rapp, Deputy Superintendent; * Kenneth Menier, Superintendent, * (UNPUBLISHED) * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: August 6, 1998 Filed: October 23, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Robert H. Reehten appeals from the district court & s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. In an amended complaint, Mr. Reehten alleged that his civil rights were viola tedwhile he was housed as a pretrial detainee at the St. Louis County Adul t Correctional Ins titution in Chesterfield, Missouri (ACI-Gumbo). Mr. Reehten named three ACI-Gumbo employees as defendants, but did not spec ify that he was suing them in their individual capacities. The district court dismissed the action, concluding that because Mr. Reehten did not specify whether defendants were sued in their individual-2-

capaci ties, his suit was assumed to be against defendants in their official capacitie s only, and was barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

We agree that an action is against defendants only in their official capacitie s absent a clear statement that defendants are sued in their individual capacities. Se e Murphy v. Arkansas , 127 F.3d 750, 754 (8th Cir. 1997). Therefore, Mr. Reehten & s official-capacity acti on against the three defendants amounts to an action against their
mun icipal employer, St. Louis County. See Kentucky v. Graham , 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985 ) (official-capacity suits represent another way of pleading action against entity of which of

ficer is agent); Liebe v. Norton , No. 98-1163, slip op. at 10, 1998 W L 671 893, at *4 (8th Cir. Oct. 1, 1998) (action against county sheriff in his officia l capacity is treated as suit against county). We agree with Mr. Reehten, however, t hat the district court erred in concluding that Mr. R eehten & s suit was barred by the Eleventh Amendment, which prohibit s damage actions against a state. See Hopkins v. Saunders , 93 F.3d 522, 526 (8th Cir. 1996) (Eleventh Amendment prohibits citizens from suing state for money damages in federal court); Greenwood v. Ross , 778 F.2d 448, 453 (8th Cir. 1985) (notin g in § 1983 actio n, “ # [i]t is settled that a suit against a county . . . is not regarded as a suit against a state within the meaning of the Eleventh Amendment & ” (citation omitted)).
Neverthe less, after a thorough review of the record, we believe that dismissa l
was appropria te. See Yowell v. Combs , 89 F.3d 542, 544 n.4 (8th Cir. 1996) (thi s court may affirm on any grounds supported by record). Mr. Reehten & s complaint fails to state a claim for relief against St. Louis County, because he did not allege that his constitutional injuries resulted from any policy of St. Louis County. See McGautha v. Jackson County, Mo., Collections Dep & t , 36 F.3d 53, 55-56 (8th Cir. 1994) (municipal liability arises from action pursuant to official municipal policy; explaining potentia l sources of municipal policy), cert. denied , 515 U.S. 1133 (1995).-3-

Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal. A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.