United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-2843 ___________ Shannon D. Hollie, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Cal Ludeman, Commissioner of * Appeals from the United States Department of Human Services; * District Court for the Dennis Benson, Chief Executive * District of Minnesota.

Officer of Minnesota Sex Offender * Program - MSOP; Daniel Storkamp, * [UNPUBLISHED] MSOP Deputy Director; Gregg * Carlson, MSOP Director; Kevin Moser, * MSOP - Assistant Director; Raymond * Ruotsalainen, Information Technology * Spec 1;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. * ___________ * * No. 11-2845 * ___________ * * 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. * ___________ No. 11-2847 ___________ 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 *

-2- 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. * ___________ Submitted: February 3, 2012 Filed: February 8, 2012 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ 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’s1 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

The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, 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.

-3- Federer v. Gephardt, 363 F.3d 754, 757 (8th Cir. 2004) (de novo review).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

_________________________________

-4-