Case Name: Steven Anthony SERA, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Greg HARMON; James Gibson; Jeremy Andrews, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-04
Citations: 533 F. App'x 693
Docket Number: No. 13-1125
Parties: Steven Anthony SERA, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Greg HARMON; James Gibson; Jeremy Andrews, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 533
Pages: 693–694

Head Matter:
Steven Anthony SERA, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Greg HARMON; James Gibson; Jeremy Andrews, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-1125.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 23, 2013.
Filed: Oct. 4, 2013.
John Wesley Hall, Jr., Attorney, John Wesley Hall, Jr., P.C., Little Rock, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Steven Anthony Sera, Brickeys, AR, pro se.
Christine Ann Cryer, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Arkansas inmate Steven Sera brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his rights under the First Amendment when they denied him a publication that had been sent to him from outside the prison. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity. Sera appeals. Having carefully reviewed the record de novo and considered Sera's arguments for reversal, we agree with the district court's reasons for granting summary judgment to defendants on the claim. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 414-19, 109 S.Ct. 1874, 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (1989); Winslow v. Smith, 696 F.3d 716, 730-31 (8th Cir.2012) (standard of review); Murphy v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 983, 986 (8th Cir.2004) (appellate court conducts independent review of evidence to determine whether there has been exaggerated response to concerns of prison, but accords great deference to judgment and expertise of prison officials, particularly on decisions implicating institutional security).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. Sera raised other claims in his complaint, but in his appellate brief, he does not contest their disposition. See Griffith v. City of Des Moines, 387 F.3d 733, 739 (8th Cir.2004) (claims not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned).
. The Honorable Joe J. Volpe, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).