Jesse Tiedeman v. Douglas Weber, No. 14-3310 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Bye and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner Civil Rights. Defendants' summary judgment on plaintiff's access-to-courts and conspiracy claims affirmed without comment; issues raised for the first time on appeal would not be considered.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-3310 ___________________________ Jesse Claude Tiedeman lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Douglas L. Weber, Director of Prison Operations at South Dakota State Penitentiary; Troy Ponto, Assoc. Warden; Clifton Fantroy, Unit Manager; Jennie Peterson, Unit Coordinator; Heather Veld, Case Manager; Linda Miller-Hunhoff, Mailroom Supervisor; Kayla Stekelberg, Unit Coordinator; Mike Holmes, License Plates Supervisor; Steve Linniweber, Corrections Officer; Thomas Linniweber, Corrections Officer lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls ____________ Submitted: June 16, 2015 Filed: June 23, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jesse Tiedeman appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action asserting access-to-courts and conspiracy claims. Upon careful de novo review, see Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review), we conclude that the district court’s summary judgment decision was proper, see Hartsfield v. Nichols, 511 F.3d 826, 831-32 (8th Cir. 2008) (access-to-courts claim must be supported by showing of actual injury; discussing actual-injury requirement); see also Burton v. St. Louis Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 731 F.3d 784, 798 (8th Cir. 2013) (plaintiff alleging conspiracy under § 1983 must show that he was deprived of constitutional right or privilege). In addition, we decline to consider claims that Tiedeman has asserted for the first time on appeal. See Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 849 (8th Cir. 2014) (appellate court does not address legal or factual claims presented for first time on appeal). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. -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.
