Case Name: Robert Anthony MURPHY, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, MINNESOTA; Patrick D. McGowan, Sheriff; Michele Smolley, Chief Deputy; Thomas Merkel, Inspector; Richard Estensen, Former Inspector, officially and individually, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-19
Citations: 162 F. App'x 677
Docket Number: No. 05-1754
Parties: Robert Anthony MURPHY, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, MINNESOTA; Patrick D. McGowan, Sheriff; Michele Smolley, Chief Deputy; Thomas Merkel, Inspector; Richard Estensen, Former Inspector, officially and individually, Appellees.
Judges: Before BYE, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 162
Pages: 677–677

Head Matter:
Robert Anthony MURPHY, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, MINNESOTA; Patrick D. McGowan, Sheriff; Michele Smolley, Chief Deputy; Thomas Merkel, Inspector; Richard Estensen, Former Inspector, officially and individually, Appellees.
No. 05-1754.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2005.
Decided Jan. 19, 2006.
Kay Nord Hunt, Seth M. Colton, Theresa Ann Bofferding, Lommen & Nelson, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Toni Ann Bunker Beitz, Hennepin County Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before BYE, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Robert Anthony Murphy sued Hennepin County and certain county officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 alleging his federal constitutional rights were violated due to a fourteen-hour period of detention in the Hennepin County Adult Detention Center (ADC) after Murphy posted bail. The district court granted Hennepin County's motion for summary judgment after concluding Murphy failed to show deliberate indifference to his constitutional rights. Murphy filed a timely appeal.
We are guided and controlled in our disposition of this case by several recent decisions involving similar challenges to the outprocessing procedures at the ADC, some of which involved a longer period of detention than the period of detention at issue in this case. See Lund v. Hennepin County, 427 F.Bd 1123 (8th Cir.2005); Russell v. Hennepin County, 420 F.3d 841 (8th Cir.2005); Golberg v. Hennepin County, 417 F.3d 808 (8th Cir.2005); Luckes v. County of Hennepin, 415 F.3d 936 (8th Cir.2005); Stepnes v. Hennepin County, No. 05-2059, 2005 WL 3113440 (8th Cir. Nov.22, 2005) (unpublished); and Killingham v. County of Hennepin, No. 04-3216, 2005 WL 2807117 (8th Cir. Oct.28, 2005) (unpublished). All of the issues raised by Murphy were addressed and decided in Hennepin County's favor in one or more of the above cases. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court in favor of Hennepin County in this case.
. The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.