CHESTANG v. TROTTER ADC ADC ADC ADC ADC ADC ADC ADC ADC ADC (2018)

[Unpublished]

In this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Arkansas inmate KeOndra Chestang appeals the district court’s ¹ 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.

FOOTNOTES

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.

PER CURIAM.