Brunson Roberts v. Roderick Johnson, et al


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Kermit E. Bye, Steven M. Colloton and Duane Benton (UNPUBLISHED) [4171756] [13-2934]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-2934 ___________________________ Brunson Roberts, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Roderick Johnson, individual capacity; Antwon Emsweller; Ricky Webb, individual capacity; Felicia Piggee, individual capacity; and David Tucker, individual capacity, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff ____________ Submitted: June 26, 2014 Filed: July 3, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BYE, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Appellate Case: 13-2934 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/03/2014 Entry ID: 4171756 In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Arkansas inmate Brunson Roberts appeals following the district court’s1 dismissal of certain defendants, two adverse partial summary judgment decisions, and adverse entry of judgment on a jury verdict. Upon careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. First, to the extent Roberts argues that defense counsel violated a limine order, we conclude that there was neither prejudicial error nor denial of a fair trial. See Black v. Shultz, 530 F.3d 702, 706 (8th Cir. 2008) (violation of limine order may only serve as basis for new trial when order is specific in its prohibition and violation is clear; decision to grant new trial is reviewed for clear abuse of discretion; party is entitled to new trial due to limine violation only where violation constitutes prejudicial error or results in denial of fair trial). Second, as to his assertion that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, we note that there is no right to counsel in a civil case. See Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988) (no constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel in civil case; remedy for ineffective assistance of appointed counsel in civil action is legal malpractice suit). Third, we conclude, upon de novo review, that the district court properly disposed of many of Roberts’s claims prior to trial. See Rochling v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 725 F.3d 927, 937 (8th Cir. 2013) (summary judgment decision is reviewed de novo); King v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr., 598 F.3d 1051, 1052 (8th Cir. 2010) (dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is reviewed de novo). Finally, we conclude that Roberts has not shown entitlement to any relief based on his assertion that a transport officer engaged in misconduct during the trial. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable D. P. Marshall, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- Appellate Case: 13-2934 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/03/2014 Entry ID: 4171756

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?