Robert Sanford v. NE Dept of Correction Services, et al, No. 10-2141 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil Case - civil rights. Dismissal without prejudice of civil rights due process claim is affirmed, as placement in administrative segregation did not amount to atypical and significant hardship. District court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claim.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-2141 ___________ Robert E. Sanford, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Nebraska Department of Correctional * Services; Robert P. Houston, Director * [UNPUBLISHED] of Correctional Services; Fred * Britten, Warden at the Tecumseh * State Corr. Inst.; Unknown Sherman, * Unit Manager of SMU at Tecumseh * State Corr. Inst. et al., * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: September 7, 2010 Filed: September 9, 2010 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Nebraska inmate Robert E. Sanford appeals the district court s1 28 U.S.C. § 1915A dismissal without prejudice of his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 1 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. state law. Following de novo review, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam), we conclude that Sanford s federal due-process claim was properly dismissed, because it was based on his placement in administrative segregation, which did not amount to an atypical and significant hardship. See Orr v. Larkins, 610 F.3d 1032, 1034 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). We also find that the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Sanford s remaining state-law claim. See Gibson v. Weber, 431 F.3d 339, 342 (8th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
