Pete Wright v. MO Dept. of Mental Health, No. 21-3744 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Kelly, Erickson, and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court's order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims is affirmed without comment. [ June 06, 2022 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 21-3744 ___________________________ Pete Wright lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Missouri Department of Mental Health lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: June 2, 2022 Filed: June 7, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________ Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Pete Wright, who is civilly committed at the Sex Offender Rehabilitation Treatment Services facility of the Missouri Department of Mental Health, appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act (RA). After careful de novo review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. See Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465, 473, 484 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting standard of review and listing requirements of Title II ADA claim); Gorman v. Bartch, 152 F.3d 907, 912 (8th Cir. 1998) (noting ADA is similar in substance to RA and cases interpreting them are applicable and interchangeable); see also Brunckhorst v. City of Oak Park Heights, 914 F.3d 1177, 1183 (8th Cir. 2019) (stating defendant is not required to accommodate plaintiff based on plaintiff’s preference). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. -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.
