The Honorable David S. Do ty, United States District Judge for

the District of Minnesota, ado pting the report and recommendations of t he Honorable Jonathan G. Lebedoff, United States Magistrat e Judge for the District of Minnesota. ___________ No. 96-2000

___________ Stephen Andrew Hodgson, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Appeal from the United States Frank W. Wood, Commissioner of * District Court for the Corrections; James Bruton, * District of Minnesota. Deputy Commissioner; Dennis L. * Benson, Warden of MCF-STW; * [UNPUBLISHED] John Doe, unknown at this time; * John Doe, unknown at this time, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: February 7, 1997 Filed: March 6, 1997

___________ Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
StephenA. Hodgson, a Minnesota inmate, appeals from the distric t court's adverse grant of summary ju dgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.

1 We affirm.

In 1973 , the Minnesota legislature enacted Minn. Stat. Ann
. § 243.88(2), which provides that inmates who work in interstate industry will be paid the prevailing minimum wage , in compliance with th e Ashurst-Sumners Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1761. See 17 U.S.C.-2-

§ 1761; Minn. Stat. Ann. § 243.88(2) (1992). In 1994, th e Minnesota Department of Correc tions (MDOC) implemented a statewide policy of deducting the cost of room and board from the gros s wages of inmates making over $2.20 per hour, pursuant to Minn. Sta t. Ann. § 24 3.23(2) (1992) (providing that MDOC commissioner may deduc t cost of room and board from inmate wages, including wages earne d pursuant to section 243.88).

Ho dgson, whose interstate industry work assignment began i n 1994 and now earns him $5.00 p er hour, commenced this section 1983 action, arguing the room and board deduction deprived him of hi s guaran teed wages without due process of law; violated his equa l protection rights because the deduction was applied only to inmates who made over $2.20 per hour; and increased his criminal pun ishment in violati on of the Ex Post Facto Clause. The district cour t gr anted defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding tha t Hodgson did not have a property interest in his gross wages; that Hodgso ndid not allege he was treated differently than thos e similarly situated; and that the MDOC policy was not impleme nted to punish Hodgson for a past crime.

We rev iew de novo the district court's grant of summar y judgment and will affirm only if the record, viewed in the ligh t most favorable to the non-moving party, shows that there is n o genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party i s ent itled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P
. 56(c); Mahers v. Halford , 76 F.3d 951, 954 (8th Cir. 1996 ) (standard of review), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 696 (1997).

We agree with the district court that Hodgson's due proces s claim fails. Wages earned pursuant to section 243.88(2) ar e conditionedupon section 243.23(2)'s express authorization o f deductions for the costs of room and board. See Minn. Stat. Ann.-3-

§§ 243.23(2), 243.88(2)-(3) (1992); see also 18 U.S.C.-4-

§ 1761(c)(2)(B) (permitting states to deduct room and board costs fro minmate wages). Thus, Hodgson failed to demonstrate a legitimate claim of entitlemen t grounded in state law to his gross wage. See Hrbek v. Farrier , 787 F.2d 414, 416 (8th Cir. 1986 ) (finding state statute authorizing wages was conditioned upo n other statute allowing for deduction s; thus, wage statute did not confer property rights to entire wage); Ervin v. Blackwell , 733 F.2 d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1984) (same).

We als o agree with the district court that Hodgson's equa l prot ectionclaim fails. "The Equal Protection Clause generall y requires the government to tre at similarly situated people alike." Klinger v. Department of Corrections , 31 F.3d 727, 731 (8th Cir
. 1994), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1177 (1995). Even assuming Hodgson is simil arly situated to inmates who earn $2.20 per hour, he di d not rebut defendants' evidence that the policy was rationall y related to the legitimate penological interests of defraying room and board costs, teaching fina ncial responsibility, and equalizing the spen ding ability of inmates. See Turner v. Safley , 482 U.S
. 78, 79 (1987); Timm v. Gunter , 917 F.2d 1093, 1103 (8th Cir. 1990), cert. denied , 501 U.S. 1209 (1991).
Finally, the district court correctly concluded that Hodgson 's
expost facto claim fails because he did not rebut defendants ' evidence that section 243.23 was implemented to defray the c osts of supporting the inmate population, not to punish him for his pas t criminal acts. See Collins v. Youngblood , 497 U.S. 37, 52 (1990) (stating standard for ex post facto claim); Flemming v. Nest or , 363 U.S. 6 03, 612-21 (1960) (discussing that where statute does no t intend to punish and serves legitimate interest, no violatio n of Ex Post Facto Clause).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.-5--6-

A true copy.

Attest:

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