Case Name: Stephen James Earl KEMP, Appellant, v. Dick MOORE, George A. Lombardi, Steven D. Long, Denis Dowd, Charles E. Harris, Joseph Rosenberg, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1991-10-07
Citations: 946 F.2d 588
Docket Number: No. 90-2903
Parties: Stephen James Earl KEMP, Appellant, v. Dick MOORE, George A. Lombardi, Steven D. Long, Denis Dowd, Charles E. Harris, Joseph Rosenberg, Appellees.
Judges: Before ARNOLD and BEAM, Circuit Judges, and HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 946
Pages: 588–589

Head Matter:
Stephen James Earl KEMP, Appellant, v. Dick MOORE, George A. Lombardi, Steven D. Long, Denis Dowd, Charles E. Harris, Joseph Rosenberg, Appellees.
No. 90-2903.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 12, 1991.
Decided Oct. 7, 1991.
Donald Wolff, Clayton, Mo., argued (Glenn Moller, St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellant.
Erwin Switzer, St. Louis, Mo., for appel-lees.
Before ARNOLD and BEAM, Circuit Judges, and HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Kemp, a member of the Chickasaw Indian Nation, is imprisoned at the Farmington Correctional Center in Missouri. He follows the religious tenets and practices of the Native American religion embraced by the Chickasaws. One practice involves the wearing of long hair. A sweat lodge is also used in some religious ceremonies.
Kemp sought an injunction in the district court to prohibit Missouri prison officials from enforcing a regulation that requires the hair to be cut to collar length. He also requested an order forcing the construction of a sweat lodge. In addition, Kemp claimed the right to money damages.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissed the complaint. The court cited Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2261-63, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987); Iron Eyes v. Dowd, 907 F.2d 810 (8th Cir.1990) and Dunavant v. Moore, 907 F.2d 77 (8th Cir.1990) as controlling law in this circuit. •
We agree that these cases require the result ordered by the district court. There would be no precedential value in discussing them at length in this opinion. We, accordingly, affirm on the basis of the well-reasoned opinion of the district court. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.