Case Name: Ronald K. JORDAN Plaintiff-Appellant v. Brian D. HALL, Correctional Officer, PCC, Individually; Joey Arcand, Caseworker, PCC, Individually Defendants-Appellees. Paul Johnson, Caseworker, PCC, Individually; Clifford Owens, FUM, PCC, Individually Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-06
Citations: 690 F. App'x 448
Docket Number: No. 15-3424
Parties: Ronald K. JORDAN Plaintiff-Appellant v. Brian D. HALL, Correctional Officer, PCC, Individually; Joey Arcand, Caseworker, PCC, Individually Defendants-Appellees Paul Johnson, Caseworker, PCC, Individually; Clifford Owens, FUM, PCC, Individually Defendants
Judges: Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 448–449

Head Matter:
Ronald K. JORDAN Plaintiff-Appellant v. Brian D. HALL, Correctional Officer, PCC, Individually; Joey Arcand, Caseworker, PCC, Individually Defendants-Appellees Paul Johnson, Caseworker, PCC, Individually; Clifford Owens, FUM, PCC, Individually Defendants
No. 15-3424
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: June 1, 2017
Filed: June 6, 2017
Ronald K. Jordan, Pro Se
Katherine S. Walsh, Attorney General’s Office, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendants-Appellees
Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Missouri inmate Ronald K. Jordan appeals following final judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Mr. Jordan challenges the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant Joey Arcand; the verdict in favor of defendant Brian D. Hall after a bench trial; and several pretrial and post-trial orders. We agree with the district court that there were no jury issues on Mr. Jordan's due process claim against Mr. Arcand. See Mason v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 559 F.3d 880, 884-85 (8th Cir. 2009) (reviewing de novo grant of summary judgment, viewing evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of non-moving party). Further, we find no clear error in the district court's finding that Mr. Jordan did not show that Mr. Hall — in conducting searches of, and confiscating items from, Mr. Jordan's person or cell — was acting in retaliation for Mr. Jordan's engagement in protected activity. See Kaplan v. Mayo Clinic, 847 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2017) (following bench trial, this court reviews de novo legal conclusions, and for clear error factual findings); Wright v. St. Vincent Health Sys., 730 F.3d 732, 739 (8th Cir. 2013) (district court's credibility findings in bench trial, like jury's credibility findings in jury trial, are virtually unassailable on appeal); Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439, 449-50 (8th Cir. 2010) (elements of retaliation claim). Finally, as to Mr. Jordan's remaining challenges to district court orders, they provide no basis for reversal. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R.47B
. The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.