The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United Sta tes District Court for the Northern 1 District of Iowa. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 95-4124

___________ Raymond Jaeger, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Dubuque County, Iowa; Alan Pearson; * Norther District of Iowa. Fred H. McCaw; Dennis Avenarius; Ken * Runde; Don Vrotsos; Joe Sanfilippo; * [UNPUBLISHED] Bradley E. Azeltine; Paul Buss, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: April 30, 1997 Filed: May 29, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Ra ymond Jaeger appeals from the district court order granting summar y 1 judgment to defendants in Jaeger's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action based on an allegedly-2-

unconstitutional search and seizure and an injunction allegedly obtained without du e process. We affirm. Jaeger asserted that his property was searched pursuant to a warra nt that was not support ed by probable cause, and did not describe the property seized with sufficient pa rticularity. He also claimed that defendant Dubuque County prosecuting attorne y Fred McCaw had obtained a permanent injunction preventing Jaeger from physically ente ring, mortgaging, or otherwise using his property as desired, without providin g Jaeger notice of or an opportunity to be heard regarding this injunction.
Thi s court reviews "a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the sam e standard as the district court: whether the record, viewed in a light most favorable to the non-movin g party, shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and th e moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Earnest v. Courtney , 64 F.3d 365, 366-67 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). We agree with the district court that the search warrant, which was based on the personal observations of investigating officers from the Dubuque County Sheriff' s Depa rtment and the information provided by a confidential informant, was supported by probable cause. See United States v. Robertson , 39 F.3d 891, 892 (8th Cir. 1994) ("prob able cause" is "fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will b e found in a particular place") (quoting United States v. Tagbering , 985 F.2d 946, 949 (8th Cir. 1993)), cert. den ied , 115 S. Ct. 1812 (1995); Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 230 -31 (1983) (totality-of-circumstances employed in determining probable cause)

. We also agree with the district court that the warrant described the items to be seized with sufficient particularity. See United States v. Lowe , 50 F.3d 604, 607 (8th Cir. ) (search warrant's language "must be sufficiently definite to enable the searcher t o reasonably ascertain and identify the things authorized to be seized")(quoting United States v. Saunders , 957 F.2d 1488, 1491 (8th Cir.), cert
. denied , 506 U.S. 889 (1992)), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 260 (1995).-3-

Finally, we

conclude summary judgment was proper on Jaeger's claim McCaw violate d his due process rights by obtaining the injunction, as the claim was based on Jaeger's own incorrect assumptions about the injunction's force and effect. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK , U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT

.