Matthew Prow v. Tom Roy, No. 17-2883 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Colloton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Defendants' summary judgment affirmed without comment. [ April 02, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2883 ___________________________ Matthew Prow lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Tom Roy; John King; Sandra O’Hara; Steve Hammer; Mary McComb; Carol Krippner; Regina Stepney; Lieutenant Lindell; Sergeant Hillyard lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: March 29, 2018 Filed: April 3, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Minnesota prisoner Matthew Prow appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment on, inter alia, his claims challenging several policies pertaining to prison property, and his due process claims.2 Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment. See Mack v. Dillon, 594 F.3d 620, 622 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (standard of review); see also Turner v. Safely, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987); Libertarian Party of Ark. v. Martin, 876 F.3d 948, 952 (8th Cir. 2017) (discussing standard to be “prevailing party” in civil rights action); Phillips v. Norris, 320 F.3d 844, 847 (8th Cir. 2003) (no federal constitutional liberty interest in having prison officials follow prison regulations); Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494, 495 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (prison’s grievance procedures confer no substantive rights; they are procedural rights only, which do not give rise to protected liberty interest requiring Fourteenth Amendment protections). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and Prow’s pending motions are denied as moot. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Steven E. Rau, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 Prow waived his retaliation claim by failing to raise it on appeal. See Hess v. Ables, 714 F.3d 1048, 1051 n.2 (8th Cir. 2013). -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.
