William Zuck v. Mario Peart, et al

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Morris S. Arnold and Diana E. Murphy (UNPUBLISHED) [4434982] [15-3553]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-3553
___________________________
William W. Zuck
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Mario Peart, Lincoln Correctional Center (LCC) Warden All in their individual
capacities and official capacities; Diane Sabatka-Rhine, Former LCC Warden All
in their individual capacities and official capacities; Robert Houston, Nebraska
Department of Correctional Services (NDCS) Director All in their individual
capacities and official capacities; Janet Boyer, LCC Food Service Director All in
their individual capacities and official capacities; John Does, Unknown number of
John and Jane Does Involved Through the LCC Kitchen All in their individual
capacities and official capacities; Jane Does, Unknown number of John and Jane
Does Involved Through the LCC Kitchen All in their individual capacities and
official capacities; John Does, Unknown number of John and Jane Does Involved
Through the NDCS Canteen All in their individual capacities and official
capacities; Jane Does, Unknown number of John and Jane Does Involved Through
the NDCS Canteen All in their individual capacities and official capacities;
Charles Glenn, LCC Religious Coordinator All in their individual capacities and
official capacities; John Does, Unknown number of John and Jane Does Involved
in the NDCS Religious Study Committee All in their individual capacities and
official capacities; Jane Does, Unknown number of John and Jane Does Involved
in the NDCS Religious Study Committee All in their individual capacities and
official capacities; Tanya K. Dana, LCC Unit Manager Mrs. Dana All in their
individual capacities and official capacities; Mr. Dorton, Former LCC Case
Manager Mr. Dorton All in their individual capacities and official capacities;
Salvador “Tony” Cruz, LCC Unit Manager All in their individual capacities and
official capacities, also known as Tony; Robert Madsen, LCC Deputy Warden All
in their individual capacities and official capacities; Frank Hopkins, NDCS
Deputy Director All in their individual capacities and official capacities; Unknown

Appellate Case: 15-3553

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/08/2016 Entry ID: 4434982

Doe, Unknown John or Jane Doe for RPH, Director All in their individual
capacities and official capacities; Keefe Group, and its affiliated companies All in
their individual capacities and official capacities; H.J. Heinz Co., L.P. All in their
individual capacities and official capacities; Carriage House Companies, Inc. All
in their individual capacities and official capacities; Portion Pac, Inc. All in their
individual capacities and official capacities; Unknown Number of Companies,
Involved in Food Items Served as Part of the NDCS Religious Diet Program. All
in their individual capacities and official capacities; Jon Bruning
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln
____________
Submitted: August 1, 2016
Filed: August 8, 2016
____________
Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Nebraska inmate William W. Zuck appeals following the district court’s1
adverse grant of summary judgment in his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. We have considered the
district court's admirably thorough opinions in this case and Mr. Zuck’s arguments
for reversal. We find no error in the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal of some
claims, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (de

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska.
-2-

Appellate Case: 15-3553

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/08/2016 Entry ID: 4434982

novo review); the denial of leave to amend, see Reuter v. Jax Ltd., Inc., 711 F.3d 918,
921 (8th Cir. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard of review); the denial of the
discovery-related motions, see Murchison v. Rogers, 779 F.3d 882, 893-94 (8th Cir.
2015) (reviewing denial of motion to compel for gross abuse of discretion); the denial
of the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), see Anzaldua v. Ne.
Ambulance & Fire Prot. Dist., 793 F.3d 822, 836-37 (8th Cir. 2015) (district court has
wide discretion in considering Rule 56(d) motion); or the adverse grant of summary
judgment, see Murchison, 779 F.3d at 886-87 (reviewing de novo, viewing record in
light most favorable to non-movant and drawing all reasonable inferences in nonmovant’s favor). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-3553

Page: 3

Date Filed: 08/08/2016 Entry ID: 4434982