Robert Diggs v. Sheriff Jim Arnott, et al

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Diana E. Murphy, Steven M. Colloton and Duane Benton (UNPUBLISHED) [4146838] [13-1632]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-1632 ___________________________ Robert O. Diggs, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Sheriff Jim Arnott; Administrator Tim Smith; Harold Bengsch; John I. Doe; John 2 Doe; John 3 Doe; Corporal Jones; Officer Taylor; Sergeant Murphy, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees, -----------------------------Robert O. Diggs, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Greene County Justice Center; Sheriff Jim Arnott; Tim Smith; Harold Bengsch; Jim Viebrock; John(1-6) Does; Sartor; Officer Nay; Joe Mystrik; Lt. Danny; Captain Clayton; Joe Hutchtion; Sgt. Canter; Greene County; Lieutenant Howell; Lieutenant Mahy; Corporal Herman; John 1 Doe; John 2 Doe; John 3 Doe; John 4 Doe; John 5 Doe; John 6 Doe, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees, ------------------------------ Appellate Case: 13-1632 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2014 Entry ID: 4146838 Robert O. Diggs, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Sheriff Jim Arnott; Tim Smith; Kenneth Clayton; Howell; Officer Nay; Commissioner Harold Bengsch; Commissioner Jim Viebrock; St. Clair, Officer, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: March 12, 2014 Filed: April 24, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this appeal, Robert Diggs challenges the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment disposing of his three consolidated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints, and he challenges two adverse district court orders related to a motion he filed seeking a third extension of time to file a summary judgment response. 1 The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2- Appellate Case: 13-1632 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2014 Entry ID: 4146838 We first conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Diggs’s third motion for an extension of time to file a summary judgment response, or in denying his post-judgment motion for reconsideration of that denial. See Soliman v. Johanns, 412 F.3d 920, 921 (8th Cir. 2005) (district court’s denial of request for extension to file summary judgment response reviewed for abuse of discretion); Griffin v. Super Valu, 218 F.3d 869, 870-71 (8th Cir. 2000) (absent abuse of discretion, appellate court will not reverse denial of post-judgment relief). We further conclude that the district court’s summary judgment decision was proper with respect to Diggs’s claims asserting constitutional violations related to the Ramadan diet he received as a pretrial detainee.2 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(3) (if party fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), court may grant summary judgment based on motion and supporting materials); Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 982 (de novo review standard); see also Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446, 449 (8th Cir. 1992) (prisoners have right to nutritionally adequate food; prison officials are entitled to judgment as matter of law when prisoner presents no evidence that food was nutritionally inadequate or dangerous to prisoner’s health). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 2 None of the remaining claims in Diggs’s complaints have been meaningfully argued on appeal. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (claim not meaningfully argued in opening brief is waived). -3- Appellate Case: 13-1632 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/24/2014 Entry ID: 4146838

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?