Notice: Eighth Circuit Rule 28a(k) Governs Citation of Unpublished Opinions and Provides That They Are Not Precedent and Generally Should Not Be Cited Unless Relevant to Establishing the Doctrines of Res Judicata, Collateral Estoppel, the Law of the Case, or if the Opinion Has Persuasive Value on a Material Issue and No Published Opinion Would Serve As Well, 996 F.2d 1221 (8th Cir. 1985)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit - 996 F.2d 1221 (8th Cir. 1985) C. Michael ANDERSON; Peter Hochstein, Appellants,v.Frank O. GUNTER, individual and Director of NebraskaDepartment of Correctional Services; Gary Grammar,individual and as Warden of Nebraska State Penitentiary;Harold W. Clarke, individual and as associate warden forcustody and a member of the 18 July 1985 Warden's StaffReview; John Eggers, individual and as member of the July18 1985 Segregation Status Review Committee; John E. Scavo,individual and as member of the July 18, 1985 SegregationStatus Review Committee; Angelo S. Vinci, individual and asa member of the 18 July 1985 Segregation Status ReviewCommittee and the 19 July 1985 Administrative DetentionHearing Officer; Terry D. Ewing, individual and asAdministrative Detention Hearing Officer; Doug Adams,individual and as a member of the 29 August 1985 SegregationStatus Review Committee as Notice of Hearing Officer forDirector's Classification Sub-Committee; Larry & Wayne,individual and as a member of the 29 August 1985 SegregationStatus Review Committee and the 6 May 1985 DisciplinaryCommittee; Edward F. Janousek, individual and as member ofthe 29 August 1985 Segregation Status Review Committee; Lt.Steve Johnson, individual and as member of the 29 August1985 Segregation Status Review Committee; John Shaw,individual and as a member of the 18 July 1985 and 29 August1985 Warden's Staff Review; Mario Peart, individual and asa member of the 18 July 1985 and 29 August 1985 Warden'sStaff Review; L. Edward Johnson, individual and as a memberof the 18 July 1985 and 29 August 1985 Warden's StaffReview; A. W. Knight, individual and as a member of the 29August 1985 Warden's Staff Review and the 6 May 1985Disciplinary Committee; Dennis Bakewell, individual and asa member of the 13 November 1985 Director's ClassificationSub-Committee; Walter Leapley, individual and as a member ofthe 13 November 1985 Director's ClassificationSub-Committee; Steve Peck, individual and as a member ofthe 13 November 1985 Director's ClassificationSub-Committee; Terry Neeman, individual and as a member ofthe 13 November 1985 Director's Classification Sub-Committee;Kevin Belt, individual and as DisciplinaryCommittee Coordinator, Appellees

No. 92-2956.

United States Court of Appeals,Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 14, 1993.Filed: July 6, 1993.

Before FAGG and MAGILL, Circuit Judges, and STUART,*  Senior District Judge.

PER CURIAM.


Appellants C. Michael Anderson and Peter Hochstein appeal from the order of the magistrate judge1  dismissing the appellants' procedural due process and Eighth Amendment claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(c), and entering judgment for defendants on appellants' remaining procedural due process claims.

Appellants, prisoners in the Nebraska State Penitentiary, challenged the procedures surrounding the initial decision to place them in disciplinary segregation, the procedures surrounding the decision to keep them in enhanced confinement after their initial period of disciplinary segregation had expired, and the conditions in the disciplinary segregation unit. The magistrate judge granted the prison officials' motion to dismiss the first set of due process claims and the Eighth Amendment claims pursuant to a motion under Rule 52(c) made at the close of plaintiffs' evidence. The magistrate judge entered judgment for defendants on the remaining due process claims at the close of trial.

Appellants claim that the magistrate judge erred in determining that they received sufficient procedural protection surrounding the initial decision to place them in disciplinary segregation, that their continued placement in disciplinary segregation served a legitimate governmental purpose, and that their Eighth Amendment claims are without merit.

Having thoroughly reviewed the briefs and the record, we agree with the magistrate judge that judgment for defendants on all claims was appropriate. As no error of law appears, and as an opinion in this case would have no precedential value, the decision of the magistrate judge is affirmed without opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

 *

THE HONORABLE WILLIAM C. STUART, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation

 1

The Honorable David L. Piester, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska. Magistrate Judge Piester conducted this trial and entered judgment pursuant to the consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)

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.