Jeffrey Hill v. Ray Wallace, No. 16-4434 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Bowman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. The district court did not err in granting defendants summary judgment on plaintiff's claims arising from his conditional admission to the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4434 ___________________________ Jeffrey L. Hill lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Ray Wallace; Lee Kriehbiel; University of Arkansas at Fort Smith lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith ____________ Submitted: July 28, 2017 Filed: July 31, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jeffrey Hill appeals after the district court1 adversely granted summary judgment in his consolidated actions asserting due process and Thirteenth 1 The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. Amendment claims arising from his conditional admission to the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith. We conclude that defendants’ motion for summary judgment was appropriately granted, see Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo), because there was no genuine issue as to whether Hill was deprived of his liberty or property, as required for a due process claim, see Creason v. City of Washington, 435 F.3d 820, 824 (8th Cir. 2006) (discussing requirements for due process claim), or subjected to slavery or involuntary servitude within the meaning of the Thirteenth Amendment, see United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 942 (1988) (discussing meaning of words “slavery” and “involuntary servitude” in Thirteenth Amendment). We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hill’s motions for sanctions, see Exec. Air Taxi Corp. v. City of Bismarck, 518 F.3d 562, 571 (8th Cir. 2008) (denial of motion for sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion), or his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), see In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Prod. Liab. Litig., 496 F.3d 863, 866 (8th Cir. 2007) (denial of Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion; Rule 60(b) authorizes relief in only most exceptional cases). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Hill’s pending motion for sanctions. ______________________________ -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.
