Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

572 F.2d 649

Docket No. 77-1282.

Peebles v. Bishop

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted March 16, 1978.

Decided March 27, 1978.

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1978-03-27

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1978

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Peebles v. Bishop

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1978-03-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1J. Martin Hadican, St. Louis, Mo., on brief, for appellant.

¶2Thomas W. Wehrle, St. Louis County Counselor and Andrew J. Minardi, Associate County Counselor, Clayton, Mo., on brief, for appellees.

¶3Before GIBSON, Chief Judge, VOGEL, Senior Circuit Judge, and BRIGHT, Circuit Judge.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Appellant, Walter C. Peebles, brought an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (1970) in conjunction with 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1970), alleging that appellees Paul Bishop and *650Juris Stals violated appellant’s Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. Appellant claimed that appellees, who were correctional officers employed by the St. Louis County Jail, deliberately failed to remove appellant from his jail cell after a fire had started in the cell.1 Appellant requested damages of one million dollars. The case was tried to the court2 without a jury. In a detailed and carefully considered opinion published at 428 F.Supp. 864, Judge Nangle found in favor of appellees. This appeal followed.

¶6We have examined the record and briefs and are convinced that the trial court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and that it applied correct principles of law to the factual issues presented. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of Judge Nan-gle’s opinion.

/572/f2d/649 · .json · Public domain