Full Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 26-1263 ___________________________ Bryce LaNear lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Phelps County Jail; Joe Taylor, Phelps County Jail Administrator; Michael Kirn lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: November 2, 2026 Filed: November 5, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Bryce LaNear, formerly a pretrial detainee at the Phelps County Jail, appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment on his First Amendment 1 The Honorable John M. Bodenhausen, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). challenge to the Jail’s mail policy. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by deeming appellees’ statement of facts admitted after LaNear failed to controvert them according to local rules. See Jones v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 461 F.3d 982, 989-90 (8th Cir. 2006) (abuse of discretion review); see also Robinson v. Am. Red Cross, 753 F.3d 749, 754-55 (8th Cir. 2014) (considering movant’s facts admitted when non- movant failed to controvert them according to local rules). We further conclude that the court properly granted summary judgment on LaNear’s claims, as the mail policy was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. See Murchison v. Rogers, 779 F.3d 882, 886-87 (8th Cir. 2015) (grant of summary judgment reviewed de novo; summary judgment is proper if no genuine issues of material fact remain for trial, viewing evidence in light most favorable to non-movant); Hum. Rts. Def. Ctr. v. Union Cnty., 111 F.4th 931, 935 (8th Cir. 2024) (under Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987), prison policy impinging on inmate’s constitutional rights is valid if it reasonably related to legitimate penological interests; setting out 4-factor test). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-