only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. Finding no factual disputes, we confine our discussion to whether, as a matter of law, inmates were deprived of due process by the Department’s across-the-board policy of deducting twenty percent from money received by inmates from outside sources. The inmates do not attack the validity of their restitution obligations. Nor do they attack the constitutionality of applying a portion of their prison wages or “idle pay” toward those restitution obligations. See Buckley v. Barlow, 997 F.2d 494 (8th Cir.1993) (upholding deduction of one-half of inmate’s idle pay pursuant to disciplinary committee’s restitution order); Hrbek v. Farrier, 787 F.2d 414 (8th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Instead, they argue that money cannot be
holding that inmates have a property interest in their money holding that under article i section 9 a person has no constitutionally protected privacy interest in abandoned property holding parental rights are constitutionally protected fundamental interest holding that inmates have no constitutionally protected interest in the wages earned while in prison holding inmates possess a constitutionally cognizable property interest in the interest earned on money held in their prison accounts