Case Name: Frances STORY, Plaintiff, and David L. McDermott, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Michael BURTON, Jeremiah Nixon, Attorney General, and Gary Kempker, Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections, Defendants/Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-03-01
Citations: 164 S.W.3d 3
Docket Number: No. ED 85200
Parties: Frances STORY, Plaintiff, and David L. McDermott, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Michael BURTON, Jeremiah Nixon, Attorney General, and Gary Kempker, Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections, Defendants/Respondents.
Judges: Before PATRICIA L. COHEN, P. J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 164
Pages: 3–3

Head Matter:
Frances STORY, Plaintiff, and David L. McDermott, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Michael BURTON, Jeremiah Nixon, Attorney General, and Gary Kempker, Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections, Defendants/Respondents.
No. ED 85200.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
March 1, 2005.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 19, 2005.
Application for Transfer Denied June 21, 2005.
David L. McDermott, Pacific, pro se.
Terrance J. Good, Mondonna L. Ghasedi, Lashly & Baer, P.C., St. Louis, MO, for respondent Michael Burton.
Michael J. Spillane, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondents Nixon and Kempker.
Before PATRICIA L. COHEN, P. J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
David L. McDermott, a prison inmate, appeals pro se from the judgment entered by the trial court dismissing a petition filed by him and his mother, Frances Story, for declaratory judgment, damages, and other relief against his former attorney, the Attorney General, and the Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections on claims relating to his June 1991 guilty plea, subsequent denial of parole, and access to litigation support in prison. No error of law appears. A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).