Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

701 F.2d 766

Docket No. 82-1936.

Hampton v. Mouser

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted March 11, 1983.

Decided March 16, 1983.

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1983-03-16

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1986

3 federal appellate ·

1 counsel of record

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

Relies on Arnold v. International Business Machines Corp.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1983-03-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*767Donald Rhodes, Bloomfield, Mo., for ap-pellee.

¶2Before BRIGHT, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4Appellant Charles Edward Hampton, currently an inmate at the federal penitentiary in El Reno, Oklahoma, appeals pro se from the district court’s1 dismissal of his section 1983 complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. We affirm.

¶5Appellant alleges that Ralph Mouser, Sheriff of Stoddard County, Missouri, wrote a letter containing numerous false statements about him to the United States probation officer conducting a presentence investigation of appellant. This letter was included in the presentence report, and specifically mentioned by the trial judge at appellant’s sentencing hearing. Appellant contends that because of Sheriff Mouser’s letter, he received an unusually stiff sentence. Appellant further claims that the letter’s presence in his files has adversely affected his chances of parole and kept him out of prison programs and work details.

¶6The district court dismissed the complaint because appellant failed to state any constitutional deprivation cognizable under section 1983. Moreover, appellant did not plead a sufficient connection between Sheriff Mouser’s act of writing the letter and the severity or terms of appellant’s confinement.2

¶7*768We have reviewed the district court record and find no error of law or fact. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir.R. 14.

/701/f2d/766 · .json · Public domain