The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
02-1066•Peter M. Gaona v. Town & Country
02-1066Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitMar 31, 2003
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 02-2553
___________
Gary J. Brunzo, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of Nebraska.
Harold W. Clarke, Director of *
Corrections; Mike Kenny, Chief * [UNPUBLISHED]
Executive Officer; M. Rose, *
Administrator/Supervisor; Scott *
Isherwood, Unit #1, Housing Unit *
Manager; Unknown Zeisset, Sergeant, *
Investigating Officer; Steve Burta, *
Case Manager; J. L. Darling, *
Classification/Programs; Layne *
Gissler, Segregation Officer/Review *
Chair; Jason Simmon, Board Member; *
Randy Crosby, Board Member; Scott *
Marshall, Board Member; Frank X. *
Hopkins, Associate Director; Robert *
Madsen, Board Member, *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: March 5, 2003
Filed: March 6, 2003
___________
Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
___________
-- 1 of 2 --
1 The HONORABLE RICHARD G. KOPF, Chief Judge, United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska.
-2-
PER CURIAM.
Nebraska inmate Gary Brunzo brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, claiming
that his continued placement in administrative confinement violated his Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court1 granted defendants summary
judgment, and denied Brunzo’s motion for reconsideration. Brunzo appeals. After
careful review of the record, we affirm.
Under our cases, the alleged conditions of Brunzo’s confinement simply do not
amount to an atypical and significant hardship relative to the ordinary incidents of
prison life. See Portley-El v. Brill, 288 F.3d 1063, 1065 (8th Cir. 2002); Kennedy v.
Blankenship, 100 F.3d 640, 642-43 & n.2 (8th Cir. 1996). As a result, summary
judgment was appropriate, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying reconsideration, see Smith v. Chem. Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., 285 F.3d 750,
752 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review for motion for reconsideration).
Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.