Alan Onstad v. Wendy Kelley, No. 18-1275 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bowman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner Civil Rights. Defendants' judgment is affirmed without comment. [ September 24, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-1275 ___________________________ Alan Cole Onstad lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Wendy Kelley, Director of ADC (Originally named as Wendy Kelly); James Gibson, Warden, Varner Super Max (Originally named as Gibson); Floria Washington, Mrs., Classification Officer, Varner Super Max (Originally named as Washington); Steven Ricketts, Major, Tucker Unit (Originally named as Rickett); Does, Warden (signed 2nd step grievance); Directory (signed 3rd step grievance); Deputy Warden (at Tucker Unit on 9/20/16); Marshall D. Reed, Deputy Director, ADC; Williams, Deputy Warden, Tucker Unit lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff ____________ Submitted: September 19, 2018 Filed: September 25, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Inmate Alan Cole Onstad appeals from the orders of the District Court1 granting summary judgment to the remaining defendant James Gibson and entering judgment against Onstad in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. After de novo review, viewing the record in the light most favorable to Onstad and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, we find no basis for overturning the District Court’s wellreasoned determination that Gibson was entitled to qualified immunity.2 See Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). We affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. _______________________ 1 The Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties, 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 2 Onstad has abandoned his claims against the other defendants. See Hess v. Ables, 714 F.3d 1048, 1051 n.2 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that a claim was abandoned because the appellant did not “brief this court on why dismissal was inappropriate”). -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.
