Click Back Button to Return to Publication
Darwin Ray Battle, Appellant, v. Minnesota Department of Corrections,
Appellee, Minncor Industry, Inc.;
Sheryl Ramstad Hvass; James Bruton, Sued as James H. Bruton, Warden at
Minnesota Correctional Facility(OPH); Jim Rarick, Director of Minncor Industry
at (MCF-OPH); Eileen Welsh,Education Director at (MCF-OPH); Joe Durocher, Case
Manager in CX-2 (MCF-OPH);Kyle Maser-Crist, Case Manager in CX-4 (MCF-OPH);
Dick Hagelberger, Lieutenant in CX-2 (MCF-OPH); Jessica Symmes, Associate
Warden of Operations at MCF-OPH, Defendants.
No. 02-1599
40 Fed. Appx. 308; 2002 U.S.
App. Lexis 12572
June 21, 2002,
Submitted
June 26, 2002, Filed
NOTICE:
RULES OF THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO
THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
PER CURIAM.
Minnesota inmate Darwin Ray
Battle appeals the District Court's n1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his
disability-discrimination action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Having
carefully reviewed the record, see Dulany
v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir. 1997), we affirm.
Battle sued MINNCOR Industry,
Inc., the Minnesota Department of Corrections, and various prison officials and
employees, alleging that he had been denied a
MINNCOR job assignment and participation in the prison educational
program because he had a history of migraine headaches. He claimed violations
of equal protection, due process, Titles I and II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Rehabilitation
Act (RA), and a Minnesota state statute.
Contrary to Battle's suggestion, the District Court did not abuse its
discretion in concluding that his claims were ripe for summary judgment, see Dulany,
132 F.3d at 1238-39, and in determining that defendants' discovery responses
were not materially deficient, see In re Mo. Dep't of Natural Res., 105 F.3d 434, 435 (8th Cir. 1997) ("The scope
of our review of discovery orders is both narrow and deferential.").
We agree with the District Court
that Battle's disability-based discrimination claims were either not cognizable
under § 1983 or fail on their merits. As to his ADA and RA claims, his sole
recourse was under the ADA and RA themselves, see Grey v. Wilburn, 270 F.3d 607, 610-11
(8th Cir. 2001), he established no protected liberty or property interest upon
which to base his due process claim, see
Callender v. Sioux City Residential Treatment Facility, 88 F.3d 666,
668-69 (8th Cir. 1996), he had no independent constitutional right to be
assigned a MINNCOR job or to the educational program, see Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446, 450 (8th
Cir. 1992), and [*310] he identified no similarly situated inmates who were
assigned a MINNCOR job or allowed to participate in the educational program,
see id. (equal protection analysis). To the extent he also intended to bring a
Title VII claim for race discrimination, the District Court was correct in
concluding that he is not an employee for purposes of Title VII. See Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 997
(10th Cir. 1991).
Battle's remaining claims under
ADA Titles I and II and the RA were also properly dismissed because he failed
to show that he was an employee for purposes of ADA Title I or that he was
disabled as that term is defined under ADA Title II and the RA. See 42 U.S.C. §
12102(2) (1994); 29 U.S.C. § 705(9)(B) (Supp. V 1999); 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.104, 42.540 (2001); cf. McMaster v. Minnesota, 30 F.3d 976, 980
(8th Cir. 1994) ("Inmates . . . who are required to work as part of their
sentences and perform labor within a correctional facility as part of a state-run
prison industries program are not 'employees' . . . within the meaning of the
Fair Labor Standards Act."), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1157 (1995). Finally,
we reject his vague assertion of bias, which appears to be based solely on the
Magistrate Judge's recommendations as to the disposition of his case. Cf. Lefkowitz v. Citi-Equity Group, Inc., 146
F.3d 609, 611-12 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154, 143 L. Ed. 2d
64, 119 S. Ct. 1059 (1999).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
FOOTNOTE:
n1 The Honorable Paul A.
Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting
the report and recommendations of the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States
Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.