08-2092•Mayra Dominguez-Cortez v. Michael B. Mukasey
08-2092Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit30 de out. de 2009
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-3322
___________
Curtis Smith; Melvin Leroy Tyler; *
Jeffrey J. Barmann, *
*
Appellants, *
*
v. *
* Appeal from the United States
Bob Holden; Jay Nixon; Denis Agniel; * District Court for the
George Bush; John Ashcroft, * Western District of Missouri.
*
Appellees, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Glen Escoe; Darwin E. Conley; Gale *
Hayes; James E. Granberry; McKinley *
Robinson, *
*
Interested Parties. *
___________
Submitted: October 22, 2009
Filed: October 27, 2009
___________
Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
-- 1 of 2 --
1The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendations of the
Honorable William A. Knox, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District
of Missouri.
-2-
Missouri inmates Curtis Smith, Melvin Tyler, and Jeffrey Barmann appeal the
district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action,
as well as the denials of numerous motions. Tyler has filed additional motions in this
court.
We hold that the district court properly granted defendants’ motion for
summary judgment, because the ex post facto claim failed as a matter of law. See Cal.
Dep’t of Corr. v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 507 (1995) (retroactive change in state law
is ex post facto violation only if law creates “sufficient risk of increasing the measure
of punishment attached to the covered crimes.”); Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108,
1112 (8th Cir. 2006) (grant of summary judgment reviewed de novo). We further
conclude that the challenges to the district court’s denials of motions below are either
waived or meritless. See Meyers v. Starke, 420 F.3d 738, 743 (8th Cir. 2005) (to be
reviewable, issue must be presented in brief with some specificity, and failure to do
so can result in waiver).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B. The pending motions are
denied.
______________________________
-- 2 of 2 --
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.