Rex Gard v. Bob Dooley, No. 17-1583 (8th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case

Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Bowman and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Defendants' summary judgment on plaintiff's claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the Free Exercise Clause and the Equal Protection Clause affirmed without comment.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1583 ___________________________ Rex Gard lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Bob Dooley, Chief Warden; Jenifer Stanwick, Deputy Warden; Rebecca Schieffer, Associate Warden; Susan Jacobs, Associate Warden; Other DOC Staff, unknown at this time, in their individual and official capacities lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Sioux Falls ____________ Submitted: April 16, 2018 Filed: April 30, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. South Dakota inmate Rex Gard appeals after the district court1 adversely granted summary judgment on his pro se 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 complaint asserting claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the Free Exercise Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. After careful de novo review, see Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012), we conclude that the district court appropriately granted summary judgment for the reasons outlined in the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Veronica L. Duffy, United States Magistrate 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.