Eddie Risdal v. Louis Galloway

Eighth Circuit

Eddie Risdal v. Louis Galloway

100 F. App'x 597

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 9, 2004

Docket03-3535

StatusUnpublished

This text of 100 F. App'x 597 (Eddie Risdal v. Louis Galloway) 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.

Bluebook

Eddie Risdal v. Louis Galloway, 100 F. App'x 597 (8th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Iowa inmate Eddie Risdal appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Beck v. Skon, 253 F.3d 330, 332-33 (8th Cir.2001) (standard of review), we agree with the district court that Risdal failed to create any trialworthy issues regarding his failure-to-protect claim, see Smith v. Gray, 259 F.3d 933, 934 (8th Cir.2001) (per curiam) (prison official’s failure to alleviate significant risk that should have been, but was not, perceived cannot be infliction of punishment); Moody v. St. Charles County, 23 F.3d 1410, 1412 (8th Cir.1994) (to defeat summary judgment, party must substantiate allegations with sufficient probative evidence that would allow finding in party’s favor on more than just speculation); and that he failed to state a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Risdal’s motion to compel, see In re Mo. Dep’t of Nat. Res., 105 F.3d 434, 435 (8th Cir.1997) (scope of review of discovery orders is narrow and deferential); in placing defendant Galloway’s affidavit and its attachments under seal, cf. Meyer Goldberg, Inc. v. Fisher Foods, Inc., 823 F.2d 159, 161 (6th Cir.1987) (request to lift or modify order sealing documents is left to sound discretion of trial court); or in denying appointed counsel, see Edgington v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 52 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir.1995) (standard of review; discussing factors). Finally, we reject Risdal’s contentions concerning judicial bias, as adverse rulings alone are not grounds for bias or partiality motions. See *598 Lefkowitz v. Citi-Equity Group, Inc., 146 F.3d 609, 611-12 (8th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154, 119 S.Ct. 1059, 143 L.Ed.2d 64 (1999).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Iowa inmate Eddie Risdal appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Beck v. Skon, 253 F.3d 330, 332-33 (8th Cir.2001) (standard of review), we agree with the district court that Risdal failed to create any trialworthy issues regarding his failure-to-protect claim, see Smith v. Gray, 259 F.3d 933, 934 (8th Cir.2001) (per curiam) (prison official’s failure to alleviate significant risk that should have been, but was not, perceived cannot be infliction of punishment); Moody v. St. Charles County, 23 F.3d 1410, 1412 (8th Cir.1994) (to defeat summary judgment, party must substantiate allegations with sufficient probative evidence that would allow finding in party’s favor on more than just speculation); and that he failed to state a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Risdal’s motion to compel, see In re Mo. Dep’t of Nat. Res., 105 F.3d 434, 435 (8th Cir.1997) (scope of review of discovery orders is narrow and deferential); in placing defendant Galloway’s affidavit and its attachments under seal, cf. Meyer Goldberg, Inc. v. Fisher Foods, Inc., 823 F.2d 159, 161 (6th Cir.1987) (request to lift or modify order sealing documents is left to sound discretion of trial court); or in denying appointed counsel, see Edgington v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 52 F.3d 777, 780 (8th Cir.1995) (standard of review; discussing factors). Finally, we reject Risdal’s contentions concerning judicial bias, as adverse rulings alone are not grounds for bias or partiality motions. See *598 Lefkowitz v. Citi-Equity Group, Inc., 146 F.3d 609, 611-12 (8th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154, 119 S.Ct. 1059, 143 L.Ed.2d 64 (1999).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 F. App'x 597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eddie-risdal-v-louis-galloway-ca8-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack