Cornelius Williams, Jr. v. Ian Wallace, No. 18-1131 (8th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Colloton and Stras, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Judgment in favor of prison officials affirmed without comment. [ October 09, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1131 ___________________________ Cornelius Williams, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Ian Wallace, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Warden of Southeast Correctional Center; Omar Clark, Deputy Warden, Individually and in his Official Capacity lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees Corizon; Becky Lizenbee lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants Carl Jacobsen, CCM, Individually and in his Official Capacity; Jay Gorham, FUM, Individually and in his Official Capacity lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau ____________ Submitted: October 5, 2018 Filed: October 11, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Former Missouri inmate Cornelius Williams appeals a judgment in favor of prison officials on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Americans with Disabilities Act claims. The district court1 dismissed some of Williams’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and dealt with the others by granting summary judgment to the defendants. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not err in either decision. See Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (2000) (per curiam) (explaining that de-novo review applies to dismissal for failure to state a claim under section 1915(e)); see also Odom v. Kaizer, 864 F.3d 920, 921 (8th Cir. 2017) (explaining that a grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo and that summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the prevailing party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law). We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Williams’s requests for appointed counsel. See Phillips v. Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that there is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil cases and that the denial of appointed counsel is reviewed for an abuse of discretion). We affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2-