Laveida Jones v. Randolph County, AR, No. 15-2963 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bowman and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Defendants' summary judgment affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2963 ___________________________ Laveida Jones lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Randolph County, Arkansas; David Jansen, in his official capacity; Randy Patterson, in his individual capacity; Stacy Ingram, in her official capacity as Randolph County Food Plan Administrator lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro ____________ Submitted: March 22, 2016 Filed: March 24, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas resident Laveida Jones filed this civil rights action against current and former county officials, claiming they retaliated against her and violated her due process and equal protection rights. The district court1 granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and Jones appeals. Following careful de novo review, we agree with the district court that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and that defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (summary judgment proper when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and movant is entitled to judgment as matter of law); Holt v. Howard, 806 F.3d 1129, 1132 (8th Cir. 2015) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, viewing facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party and giving that party benefit of all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from record). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable James M. Moody Jr., United States District 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.
