## 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* Eastern District of Missouri Potosi Correctional Center; John Doe, * 1-100, Unknown Male Officials of the * [UNPUBLISHED] MDC; Jane Doe, 1-100, Unknown * Female Officials of the MDC; John * Doe, 1-10, Unknown Inmates of the * PCC; Chris Harmon, Sheriff of * Washington County;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, Chi ef Judge, United States District Court for 1 the Eastern District of Missouri. Although Chambers also included as defendants various unnamed MD C 2 offi cials, PCC inmates, sheriffs, and DEA agents, the district court dismissed thes e defendants, and Ch ambers does not challenge that ruling on appeal. See Jasperson v. Purolator Courier Corp. , 765 F.2d 736, 740-41 (8th Cir. 1985).

-2- Befo re McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPAR D ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Darlene Chambers appeals from the distr ict 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 Cen ter (PCC) in July 1995 to visit her husband, a PCC inmate, she was denied admittance. PC C was investigating information that drugs were entering the institution, and Ms. Cha mbers and others were placed on a list of those whose visiting privileges were temporarily suspended. Th e investigatio n was terminated for lack of evidence approximately one month later, and all the visitors & privileges were reinstated.
During the tem

porary suspension, Ms. Chambers filed suit against the Director of t he Missouri Department of Corrections, PCC & s Superintendent and Assistan t Su perintendent, and Washington County Sheriff Chris Harmon. As relevant to thi s 2 appeal, she con tended that the PCC Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent had placed her name on a list and intention ally disseminated false information that she was

a su spected drug smuggler, thereby ruining her reputation in the community an d 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 smug gler. Ms. Chambers contended that the prison-official defendants wer e 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, amo ng others, and state law claims, including slander and libel. The dis trict court granted defendants summary judg ment as to the federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdictio n over Ms. Chambers & s state claims, dismissing them without prejudice.
We agree with t

he district court that the prison officials & alleged dissemination of false information at most supported a state law tort claim, rat her than a constitutional viol ation. See Siegert v. Gilley , 500 U.S. 226, 228-29, 233-34 (1991) (rejectin g plaintiff & s due process claim based on allegation that his former supervisor at federal hospital sent defamatory letter, causing plaintiff to lose subsequent army hospita l position and preventing him from obtaining other appropriate employment). We also conclude that the district court properly rejected Ms. Chambers & s equa l protect ionclaim, as she failed to offer evidence that she was treated differently tha n those simila

rly situated. See Klinger v. Department of Corrections , 31 F.3d 717, 731 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 513 U.S. 1185 (1995).

Summa ry 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 Sherif f Harmon, be cause there was no evidence he was involved in violating her legal rights,

see Martin v. Sargent , 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985).
Althoug h Ms. Chambers argues on appeal that she was improperly denie d discovery, she fails to specify how discoverable information could have overcome the inadequacy o f her claims. Thus we conclude that the district court did not abuse it s discretion in denying her motions to compel. See Duffy v. Wolle , 123 F.3d 1026, 1040-4-

(8th Cir. 1 997) (denial of motion to compel reviewed for gross abuse of discretion) , cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 1839 (1998); cf. Humphreys v. Roche Biomedical L aboratories, Inc. , 990 F.2d 1078, 1081 (8th Cir. 1993) (applying abuse-of-discretion standard t o denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) request for continuance to permit furth er discovery; grant of contin uance to permit discovery prior to summary judgment ruling is unjustifie d absent showing how postponement will permit rebuttal).

Insofar as Ms. Chambers raise s the issue, we conclude the district court did not abuse it s discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her stat e clai ms. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Finally, we deny Ms. Chambers & s motion fo r remand f or a hearing: although she contends that an inmate mailed to her summary judgment documents she never receive d, 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.