___________

No. 95-2133

___________

Jo Ann Sanders, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

State of Missouri, Department *

of Social Services, Division of *

Aging; Beverly Mosnick, *

Division of Aging, *

*

Defendants, *

*

Wells Fargo, Inc., a New Jersey *

Corporation; Tyrone S. Rogers; *

Jack Van Horne, Kansas City, *

Missouri Police Department, *

*

Appellees, *

* Appeal from the United States

State of Missouri, Department * District Court for the

of Mental Health, * Western District of Missouri.

*

Defendant, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Bilus Tate, President of Police *

Commissioners; Jack Headley, *

Police Commissioner; John *

Dillingham, Police Commissioner;*

Imanuel Cleaver, Police *

Commissioner; Dona R. Boley, *

Police Commissioner; J. Malena, *

Dr.; Duekstein, Dr.; Borg-Warner*

Automotive Electronics & *

Mechanical System Corporation, *

doing business as Wells Fargo *

Guard Services, Protective *

Services Corporation, a New *

Jersey Corporation, *

*

Appellees. *
 1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for

the Western District of Missouri.

 2The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of two

security guards and their employer, and dismissed on immunity

grounds the Missouri Department of Social Services (DSS) and a DSS

employee. Sanders does not challenge those orders. 

-2-

___________

 Submitted: January 30, 1996

 Filed: January 31, 1996

___________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jo Ann Sanders appeals from the order of the District Court1

granting defendants judgment as a matter of law at the close of

Sanders's case in chief, in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising

out of Sanders's arrest for trespassing and her subsequent

detention. Sanders claimed false arrest and false imprisonment;

assault and battery, malicious prosecution, and defamation; a

violation of her due process rights; a violation of her "5th"

Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment; and

intentional infliction of emotional distress. She named as

defendants arresting police officer Jack Van Horn, five members of

the Board of Police Commissioners (Board), and medical officer John

Malena.2

 We affirm.

Following presentation of Sanders's case in chief to a jury,

the District Court granted defendants' motions for judgment as a

matter of law. As to Van Horn and the Board, the District Court

concluded the following. Sanders's arrest, initiated by a

complaint of a security guard, was based on probable cause and

Sanders had failed to present any legally sufficient evidence for
-3-

submission to the jury on the issues of false arrest and false

imprisonment. Sanders's only evidence of assault and battery was

that Van Horn pushed Sanders into his patrol car and she twisted

and slid across the back seat; Sanders admitted Van Horn did not

beat her, and she presented no evidence of any resulting injury.

Sanders did not prove malicious prosecution because Van Horn had

probable cause to arrest Sanders, and Sanders did not prove Van

Horn defamed her. In addition, no legally sufficient evidentiary

basis was established for a reasonable jury to find that Sanders

was deprived of her liberty or property by Van Horn, and Sanders

did not establish the Board had a custom or policy that caused the

alleged deprivation of her constitutional rights. Finally, Sanders

did not establish that she suffered any cruel or unusual punishment

at the hands of these defendants, and she presented no evidence

that defendants' conduct was extreme or outrageous to support a

claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

As for claims against medical officer John Malena, the

District Court concluded the evidence was legally insufficient for

a reasonable jury to find Malena violated Sanders's Eighth

Amendment rights. The evidence showed that every time Malena

encountered Sanders, he sought appropriate medical treatment for

her. Moreover, there was no evidence Malena declared Sanders

insane or that he had the authority to declare Sanders insane or

commit her to the Western Missouri Mental Health facility. 

This court reviews de novo a district court's decision to

grant judgment as a matter of law, Medtronic, Inc. v. ConvaCare,

Inc., 17 F.3d 252, 255 (8th Cir. 1994), and affirms if, viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and affording

the nonmovant all reasonable inferences therefrom, the evidence

presented was insufficient to support a jury verdict in the

nonmovant's favor. Abbott v. City of Crocker, 30 F.3d 994, 997 (8th

Cir. 1994). Upon our careful review of the record, including the
-4-

trial transcript, we conclude the judgment as a matter of law was

properly granted.

As for the District Court's exclusion of evidence and certain

witnesses, we find no abuse of discretion by the District Court.

O'Dell v. Hercules Inc., 904 F.2d 1194, 1200-03 (8th Cir. 1990)

(standard of review). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.