Jim Housley v. Ray Hobb, No. 11-1988 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - prisoner civil rights. Defendant's summary judgment affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-1988 ___________ Jim Leroy Housley, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Ray Hobbs, Director, * Arkansas Department of Correction, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: August 23, 2011 Filed: August 30, 2011 ___________ Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. In this 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action, former Arkansas inmate Jim Housley appeals the district court s1 adverse grant of summary judgment and denial of his motion to amend his complaint, which he filed after the summary judgment motion had been filed. 1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. After careful de novo review of the district court s summary judgment decision, see McKenney v. Harrison, 635 F.3d 354, 358 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review), we find no basis for reversal, see Davidson & Assocs. v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630, 638 (8th Cir. 2005) (plaintiff may not merely point to unsupported self-serving allegations, but must substantiate allegations with sufficient probative evidence that would permit finding in his favor). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Housley s motion to amend his complaint, in which he sought leave to add parties and new theories of recovery. See Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review; when late-tendered amendments involve new theories of recovery and impose additional discovery requirements, appellate courts are less likely to hold a district court abused its discretion). 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.
