United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-2259

___________________________

Ivan T. Page

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Erica McDowell, Therapist, Missouri Department of Corrections, In Her Official

and Individual Capacity; Julie Motley, Director, MOSOP, In Her Official and

Individual Capacity; Mariann Atwell, Director, Rehabilitative Services, In Her

Official and Individual Capacity; Al Luebbers, Warden, Farmington Correctional

Center, In His Official and Individual Capacity; Lynn Calcote, In Her Official and

Individual Capacity; Tom Villmer, Warden, Farmington Correctional Center, In

His Official and Individual Capacity; Lindell Edmonds, MOSOP, In His Official

and IndividualCapacity; Elaine Dix, MOSOP, In Her Official and IndividualCapacity

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: February 25, 2014

Filed: February 28, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Missouri inmate Ivan Page appeals the district

court’s adverse summary judgment decisions in favor of Julie Motley, and he 1 2

appeals the district court’s adverse rulings on certain motions he filed in the district

court. Also pending are motions for appointment of counsel he filed in this court.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in its

summary judgment decisions, in which the court concluded, inter alia, that Page’s due

process, retaliation, and ex post facto claims failed as a matter of law. See Green v.

Dormire, 691 F.3d 917, 921 (8th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment decision isreviewed

de novo); Adams v. Agniel, 405 F.3d 643, 645 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (inmate

does not have constitutionally protected liberty interest in possibility of parole, and

this court has held that Missouri parole statutes create no liberty interest under state

law in parole board’s discretionary decisions); Clark v. Long, 255 F.3d 555, 559 (8th

Cir. 2001) (in order to establish violation of constitutional rights under § 1983,

plaintiff must prove that defendant’s unconstitutional action was cause in fact of

plaintiff’s injury). Furthermore, upon careful review of the district court’s orders

disposing of Page’s motions, we find no basis for reversal. See, e.g., Ahlberg v.

Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 637 (8th Cir. 2007) (discovery rulings are reviewed for

gross abuse of discretion); Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996) (trial court

has broad discretion to decide whether both plaintiff and court will benefit from

appointment of counsel). We thus affirm under 8th Cir. R. 47B. In addition, we deny

Page’s pending motions for appointment of counsel.

__________________________

The Honorable Frederick R. Buckles, United States Magistrate Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Missouri, now retired, to whom the case was referred for final

disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

In Page’s original complaint, he named numerous other individuals, all of 2

whomwere dismissed preservice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). He does not

challenge their dismissal in his appellate brief. See Jasperson v. Purolator Courier

Corp., 765 F.2d 736, 740 (8th Cir. 1985) (party’s failure to raise or discuss issue in

brief is deemed to be abandonment of that issue).

-2-