Case Name: Bobby Joe DOWNS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Nick LUDWICK; Rebecca Bowker; Deborah Nichols; Todd Ensminger; Thomas Jones; Berl Wilcox; Sheryl Dahm; Dave DeGrange; William Ell, Jr., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-03
Citations: 632 F. App'x 319
Docket Number: No. 15-1883
Parties: Bobby Joe DOWNS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Nick LUDWICK; Rebecca Bowker; Deborah Nichols; Todd Ensminger; Thomas Jones; Berl Wilcox; Sheryl Dahm; Dave DeGrange; William Ell, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 632
Pages: 319–320

Head Matter:
Bobby Joe DOWNS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Nick LUDWICK; Rebecca Bowker; Deborah Nichols; Todd Ensminger; Thomas Jones; Berl Wilcox; Sheryl Dahm; Dave DeGrange; William Ell, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-1883.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 28, 2016.
Filed: Feb. 3, 2016.
Bobby Joe Downs, Anamosa, IA, pro se.
H. Loraine Wallace, Attorney General’s Office, Des Moines, IA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Iowa inmate Bobby Joe Downs filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Iowa State Penitentiary Warden Nick Ludwick and eight other prison officials. Downs claimed he was denied access to legal materials and subjected to other unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The parties' filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
The district court correctly found that Downs did not establish an actual injury in support of his denial-of-access claim. See Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826, 831-32 (8th Cir.2008). Downs was not deprived of his right to religious freedom or subjected to a violation of the Establishment Clause based on the availability of a Christian-oriented television channel. Cf. Young v. Lane, 922 F.2d 370, 377 (7th Cir.1991) (Free Exercise Clause guarantees liberty interest; it does not guarantee that all religious sects will be treated alike in all respects). The claim of sexual exploitation, based on Downs's perception of the sexual orientation of a prison guard, did not make the visual strip searches, to which Downs did not otherwise object, unconstitutional. The remaining general claims did not rise to a constitutional violation.
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.