Jerome Bargo v. Raymond Naylor, No. 18-1340 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Bowman and Gruender,Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. In the first appeal presented, the district court did not err in disposing of the case in pre-service and summary judgment orders; in the second appeal, the district court did not err in dismissing the underlying action based on res judicata and failure to state a claim.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2376 ___________________________ Jerome Allen Bargo lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Raymond Naylor, Administrator of Internal Affairs, Arkansas Department of Correction; Randy Watson, Warden, Varner Unit; Jeremy Andrews, Deputy Warden, Varner Unit; Tony McHan, Deputy Warden of Security, Varner Unit; Thomas Rowland, C.V.S.A. Examiner, Internal Affairs; Keith Waddle, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, Internal Affairs; Gladys Evans, Supervisor of Library, Varner Unit lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ___________________________ No. 18-1340 ___________________________ Jerome Allen Bargo, ADC #75423 and all other similarly situated inmates lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant Marion Gene Westerman, ADC #121452 and all other similarly situated inmates; Robert Harold Munnerlyn, ADC #86196 and all other similarly situated inmates lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs v. Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Randall Watson, Warden, Varner Unit lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants Jeremy Andrews, Deputy Warden, Varner Unit lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee Raymond Naylor, Disciplinary Hearing Administrator, ADC; Thomas Roland, Internal Affairs Officer, ADC lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants Keith Waddle, Disciplinary Hearing Officer, ADC lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee Gladys Evans, Supervisor, Varner Unit Library lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant Jimmy Phillips, Correctional Captain, Varner Unit Field Utility and Hoe Squad lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee Ojiugo Iko, Doctor, Corizon Inc. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant ____________ Appeals from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff ____________ -2- Submitted: June 27, 2018 Filed: January 3, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jerome Bargo appeals from the adverse judgments in his related 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions. In the case underlying appeal No. 18-1340, the District Court1 disposed of the action in pre-service dismissal and summary judgment orders. After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude there is no basis for reversal. See Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014) (reviewing de novo the grant of summary judgment); Strandlund v. Hawley, 532 F.3d 741, 745 (8th Cir. 2008) (reviewing for abuse of discretion the dismissal of misjoined parties); Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (reviewing de novo pre-service dismissal). In the case underlying appeal No. 17-2376, the District Court2 dismissed the action based on res judicata and failure to state a claim. We have reviewed the record, and we conclude that dismissal was appropriate. See Kelly v. City of Omaha, ¹The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Judge Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 2 The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Patricia S. Harris, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -3- 813 F.3d 1070, 1075 (8th Cir. 2016) (reviewing de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure); Laase v. Cty. of Isanti, 638 F.3d 853, 856 (8th Cir. 2011) (“We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim based on res judicata.”). We affirm in both cases. ______________________________ -4-
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.
