Beck v. Erik Skon
This text of 226 F. App'x 648 (Beck v. Erik Skon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In this appeal following remand, see Beck v. Skon, 253 F.3d 330 (8th Cir.2001), Minnesota inmate “Reverend” Beck appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the record, we find that summary judgment was properly granted for the reasons explained by the district court. See Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108,1112 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review). We also find that Beck’s discovery-related arguments are meritless, because he did not seek to postpone a ruling on summary judgment, as permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). See Stanback v. Best Diversified Prods., Inc., 180 F.3d 903, 911 (8th Cir.1999). To the extent Beck intended to challenge the district court’s denial of his recusal motions, that challenge fails as well. See Lefkowitz v. Citi-Equity Group, Inc., 146 F.3d 609, 611-12 (8th Cir.1998) (recusal motion cannot rest solely on adverse rulings).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
226 F. App'x 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beck-v-erik-skon-ca8-2007.