Case Name: William BRADFORD, Appellant, v. Michelle WHITWORTH, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-17
Citations: 242 F. App'x 369
Docket Number: No. 06-3095
Parties: William BRADFORD, Appellant, v. Michelle WHITWORTH, Appellee.
Judges: Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 242
Pages: 369–369

Head Matter:
William BRADFORD, Appellant, v. Michelle WHITWORTH, Appellee.
No. 06-3095.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 7, 2007.
Filed: Sept. 17, 2007.
William Bradford, Farmington, MO, pro se.
Dana C. Ceresia, Attorney General’s Office, for Appellee.
Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
William Bradford, a detainee at the Missouri Sexual Offender Treatment Center, appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Michelle Whitworth, a registered nurse. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Senty-Haugen v. Goodno, 462 F.3d 876, 885 (8th Cir.2006), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2048, 167 L.Ed.2d 780 (2007) (standard of review), we agree with the district court that Nurse Whitworth's decision to place restrictions on Bradford for refusing to obey certain rules was a professional decision entitled to deference, see Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 323-25, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 73 L.Ed.2d 28 (1982); and that Bradford was provided adequate procedural protections, see Senty-Haugen, 462 F.3d at 887-88 (due process requirements are flexible and specific to each situation; most important mechanisms for ensuring due process are notice of factual basis leading to deprivation and fair opportunity for rebuttal).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.