Jeffrey Ratchford v. Gladys Evans, No. 12-3843 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. District court did not err in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' claims regarding access to the courts and retaliation.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-3843 ___________________________ Jeffrey Scott Ratchford; Charles E. Butler; Robert R. Heffernan; Dellemond Cunningham lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants v. Gladys M. Evans, Program Specialist, Varner Unit, ADC; Barbara Smallwood, Business Manager, Varner Unit, ADC; James Banks, Warden, Varner Unit, ADC; Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff ____________ Submitted: October 30, 2013 Filed: November 1, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmates Jeffrey Scott Ratchford, Charles E. Butler, Robert R. Heffernan, and Dellemond Cunningham appeal following the district court s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in their 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action. Upon de novo review, see Sutherland v. Mo. Dep t of Corr., 580 F.3d 748, 750 (8th Cir. 2009), we agree with the district court that a jury would be unable to conclude, from the evidence offered below, that the named defendants interfered with appellants right of access to the courts, or engaged in retaliatory acts against them, see Santiago v. Blair, 707 F.3d 984, 991 (8th Cir. 2013) (discussing retaliation claims); Bandy-Bey v. Crist, 578 F.3d 763, 765 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (discussing access-to-courts claims). The remaining challenged orders rulings on motions regarding discovery, appointment of counsel, and to supplement the complaint are not properly before us. This is because the magistrate judge entered these orders, and appellants did not thereafter submit the orders to the district court for review. See LeGear v. Thalacker, 46 F.3d 36, 36-37 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (magistrate judge s decision issued absent consent requires initial review by district court). Finally, we decline to address the new matters raised on appeal. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable D.P. Marshall, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
