United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-2098

___________

Darlene F. Chambers, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 *

Dora Schriro, Director of the *

Missouri Department of Corrections; *

Michael Bowersox, Superintendent, * Appeal from the United States

Potosi Correctional Center; Gloria * District Court for the

Gourley, Assistant Superintendent, * Eastern District of Missouri

Potosi Correctional Center; John Doe, *

1-100, Unknown Male Officials of the * [UNPUBLISHED]

MDC; Jane Doe, 1-100, Unknown *

Female Officials of the MDC; John *

Doe, 1-10, Unknown Inmates of the *

PCC; Chris Harmon, Sheriff of *

Washington County; John Doe *

Sheriffs and DEA Agents, Unknown *

Agents Participating in Drug Raid at *

PCC, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: September 1, 1998

 Filed: September 4, 1998

___________
The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 1

the Eastern District of Missouri.

Although Chambers also included as defendants various unnamed MDC

2

officials, PCC inmates, sheriffs, and DEA agents, the district court dismissed these

defendants, and Chambers does not challenge that ruling on appeal. See Jasperson v.

Purolator Courier Corp., 765 F.2d 736, 740-41 (8th Cir. 1985).

-2-

Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPARD

ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Darlene Chambers appeals from the district court&s entry of summary judgment 1

in favor of defendants in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations

and pendent state claims against prison officials. We affirm.

When Ms. Chambers went to the Potosi Correctional Center (PCC) in July 1995

to visit her husband, a PCC inmate, she was denied admittance. PCC was investigating

information that drugs were entering the institution, and Ms. Chambers and others were

placed on a list of those whose visiting privileges were temporarily suspended. The

investigation was terminated for lack of evidence approximately one month later, and

all the visitors& privileges were reinstated.

During the temporary suspension, Ms. Chambers filed suit against the Director

of the Missouri Department of Corrections, PCC&s Superintendent and Assistant

Superintendent, and Washington County Sheriff Chris Harmon. As relevant to this

2

appeal, she contended that the PCC Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent had

placed her name on a list and intentionally disseminated false information that she was

a suspected drug smuggler, thereby ruining her reputation in the community and

damaging her bailbonds business. She also alleged that law enforcement officials,
-3-

including Sheriff Harmon, were given false information implicating her as a suspected

drug smuggler. Ms. Chambers contended that the prison-official defendants were

retaliating against her for assisting her husband with his defense and for filing a lawsuit

against PCC officials that had been settled over a year and a half earlier. She alleged

due process, equal protection, and First Amendment violations, among others, and state

law claims, including slander and libel. The district court granted defendants summary

judgment as to the federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

over Ms. Chambers&s state claims, dismissing them without prejudice. 

We agree with the district court that the prison officials& alleged dissemination

of false information at most supported a state law tort claim, rather than a constitutional

violation. See Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 228-29, 233-34 (1991) (rejecting

plaintiff&s due process claim based on allegation that his former supervisor at federal

hospital sent defamatory letter, causing plaintiff to lose subsequent army hospital

position and preventing him from obtaining other appropriate employment). 

We also conclude that the district court properly rejected Ms. Chambers&s equal

protection claim, as she failed to offer evidence that she was treated differently than

those similarly situated. See Klinger v. Department of Corrections, 31 F.3d 717, 731

(8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1185 (1995).

Summary judgment was also proper as to Ms. Chambers&s retaliation claim,

given the lack of any supporting evidence, see Miller v. Solem, 728 F.2d 1020, 1025-

26 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 841 (1984), and as to her claim against Sheriff

Harmon, because there was no evidence he was involved in violating her legal rights,

see Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985). 

Although Ms. Chambers argues on appeal that she was improperly denied

discovery, she fails to specify how discoverable information could have overcome the

inadequacy of her claims. Thus we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying her motions to compel. See Duffy v. Wolle, 123 F.3d 1026, 1040
-4-

(8th Cir. 1997) (denial of motion to compel reviewed for gross abuse of discretion),

cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1839 (1998); cf. Humphreys v. Roche Biomedical Laboratories,

Inc., 990 F.2d 1078, 1081 (8th Cir. 1993) (applying abuse-of-discretion standard to

denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) request for continuance to permit further discovery; grant

of continuance to permit discovery prior to summary judgment ruling is unjustified

absent showing how postponement will permit rebuttal).

Insofar as Ms. Chambers raises the issue, we conclude the district court did not

abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state

claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Finally, we deny Ms. Chambers&s motion for

remand for a hearing: although she contends that an inmate mailed to her summary

judgment documents she never received, she fails to explain how the documents could

have assisted her.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

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