KeOndra Chestang v. Shermaine Trotter, No. 18-1254 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Bowman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Defendants' summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that they violated his civil rights during a pat-down search and subsequent investigation affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1254 ___________________________ KeOndra M. Chestang lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Shermaine S. Trotter, Corporal, Varner Unit, ADC; Kennie Bolden, Building Major, Varner Unit, ADC (Originally named as Kennie L Bolding); C. Budnik, Deputy Warden, Varner Unit, ADC; Floria Washington, Classification Supervisor, Varner Unit, ADC; Greenwade, Mental Health, Varner Unit, ADC; P. Carter, Mental Health, Varner Unit, ADC; Boatner, Nurse, Correct Care Solution; Harston, Nurse, Correct Care Solutions; Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Dexter Payne, Director's Assistant, Arkansas Department of Correction; Watson, Warden, Varner Unit, ADC; Raymond Naylor, Disciplinary Hearing Administrator, ADC; Terrie Bannister, Major Disciplinary Hearing Officer, ADC (originally named as Terrie L Banister); McHan, Deputy Warden, Varner Unit, ADC lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff ____________ Submitted: October 18, 2018 Filed: November 5, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Arkansas inmate KeOndra Chestang appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment on his claims that defendants violated his constitutional rights during a pat-down search and subsequent investigation. We first conclude that the district court adjudicated all of Chestang’s claims and entered final judgment. See Tenkku v. Normandy Bank, 218 F.3d 926, 927 (8th Cir. 2000) (order is final if it ends litigation and leaves nothing for court to do but execute judgment). Upon careful de novo review, viewing the record in the light most favorable to Chestang and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, we also conclude that defendants were entitled to summary judgment because it was beyond genuine dispute that the conduct alleged did not give rise to a constitutional violation. See Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Brian S. Miller, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -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.
