Shannon D. HOLLIE, Appellant, v. Cal LUDEMAN, Commissioner of Department of Human Services; Dennis Benson, Chief Executive Officer of Minnesota Sex Offender Program-MSOP; Daniel Storkamp, MSOP Deputy Director; Gregg Carlson, MSOP Director; Kevin Moser, MSOP-Assistant Director; Raymond Ruotsalainen, Information Technology Spec 1; Steven Lindeen; Mehrada Shabestari, MSOP-IT Supervisor, Appellees; Allen Pyron, Plaintiff, Robert A. Kunshier; Alvin Lamm, Appellants, v. Cal Ludeman, Commissioner of Department of Human Services; Dennis Benson, Chief Executive Officer of Minnesota Sex Offender Program-MSOP; Daniel Storkamp, MSOP Deputy Director; Gregg Carlson, MSOP Director; Kevin Moser, MSOP - Assistant Director; Raymond Ruotsalainen, Information Technology Spec 1; Steven Lindeen, Information Technology Spec 1; Mehrada Shabestari, MSOP-IT Supervisor, Appellees; Allen Pyron, Appellant, Robert A. Kunshier; Alvin Lamm, Plaintiffs, v. Cal Ludeman, Commissioner of Department of Human Services; Dennis Benson, Chief Executive Officer of Minnesota Sex Offender Program-MSOP; Daniel Storkamp, MSOP Deputy Director; Gregg Carlson, MSOP Director; Kevin Moser, MSOP-Assistant Director; Raymond Ruotsalainen, Information Technology Spec 1; Steven Lindeen; Mehrada Shabestari, MSOP-IT Supervisor, Appellees

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit2012-02-08No. Nos. 11-2843, 11-2845, 11-2847

450 F. App'x 555

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, plaintiffs Shannon Hollie, Robert Kunshier, Alvin Lamm, and Allen Pyron, civilly committed detainees in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, appeal the district court’s dismissal of their civil-rights complaints in which they claimed that newly enacted policies regarding personal property and computer usage violated their constitutional rights. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs leave to amend, as they did not file a motion to amend or a proposed amended complaint, see Clayton v. White Hall Sch. Dist., 778 F.2d 457, 460 (8th Cir.1985); and we conclude that dismissal of the complaint was proper for the reasons the district court stated, see Federer v. Gephardt, 368 F.3d 754, 757 (8th Cir.2004) (de novo review). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

. The Honorable Patrick J. Schütz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jeanne J. Graham, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.