George Gadd v. United States

Eighth Circuit

George Gadd v. United States

392 F. App'x 503

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 3, 2010

Docket10-1500

StatusUnpublished

This text of 392 F. App'x 503 (George Gadd v. United States) 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

George Gadd v. United States, 392 F. App'x 503 (8th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

George Gadd appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his civil action. In his complaint, as subsequently amended, Gadd asserted claims of failure to accommodate a disability, and retaliation, under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701, 791, and 794; failure to maintain records, improper disclosure of medical records, and failure to produce records upon request, under the Right to Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a; and failure to produce records, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). On appeal, Gadd argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, and he challenges the court’s denial of his motions to reconsider and for recusal, and its handling of the record and his discovery-related requests.

After careful de novo review, viewing the evidence and all fair inferences from it in the light most favorable to Gadd, see Buboltz v. Residential Advantages, Inc., 523 F.3d 864, 867-68 (8th Cir.2008), we conclude that summary judgment was proper. In addition, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gadd’s motion to reconsider, see Christensen v. Qwest Pension Plan, 462 F.3d 913, 920 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review for Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion); Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir.2001) (standard of review for Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion), in denying his recusal motion, see Neal v. Wilson, 112 F.3d 351, 357 & n. 6 (8th Cir.1997) (disapproving decision to wait until district judge had issued unfavorable ruling before moving for recu-sal), in maintaining certain record documents 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 handling discovery-related matters, see Sheets v. Butera, 389 F.3d 772, 780 (8th Cir.2004) (review of discovery rulings is very deferential; rulings generally will not be overturned absent gross abuse of discretion resulting in fundamental unfairness).

*504 Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

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

PER CURIAM.

George Gadd appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his civil action. In his complaint, as subsequently amended, Gadd asserted claims of failure to accommodate a disability, and retaliation, under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701, 791, and 794; failure to maintain records, improper disclosure of medical records, and failure to produce records upon request, under the Right to Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a; and failure to produce records, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). On appeal, Gadd argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, and he challenges the court’s denial of his motions to reconsider and for recusal, and its handling of the record and his discovery-related requests.

After careful de novo review, viewing the evidence and all fair inferences from it in the light most favorable to Gadd, see Buboltz v. Residential Advantages, Inc., 523 F.3d 864, 867-68 (8th Cir.2008), we conclude that summary judgment was proper. In addition, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gadd’s motion to reconsider, see Christensen v. Qwest Pension Plan, 462 F.3d 913, 920 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review for Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion); Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir.2001) (standard of review for Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion), in denying his recusal motion, see Neal v. Wilson, 112 F.3d 351, 357 & n. 6 (8th Cir.1997) (disapproving decision to wait until district judge had issued unfavorable ruling before moving for recu-sal), in maintaining certain record documents 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 handling discovery-related matters, see Sheets v. Butera, 389 F.3d 772, 780 (8th Cir.2004) (review of discovery rulings is very deferential; rulings generally will not be overturned absent gross abuse of discretion resulting in fundamental unfairness).

*504 Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 F. App'x 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-gadd-v-united-states-ca8-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack