James Toney v. Michael Hakala

Eighth Circuit

James Toney v. Michael Hakala

556 F. App'x 570

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 29, 2014

Docket13-3347

StatusUnpublished

This text of 556 F. App'x 570 (James Toney v. Michael Hakala) 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

James Toney v. Michael Hakala, 556 F. App'x 570 (8th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James I. Toney appeals from the order of the District Court 1 granting summary judgment to the defendants in Toney’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Toney, we conclude that summary judgment was proper for the reasons stated by the District Court. See Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d at 1108, 1112 (8th Cir.2006) (noting the summary judgment standard of review). We further conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in supervising the discovery process and the filing of pleadings or in its decisions to deny the appointment of counsel and an expert. See Phillips v. Jasper Cnty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir.2006) (‘We will reverse a court’s denial of appointed counsel only if it constitutes an abuse of discretion.”); Level 3 Commc’ns, L.L.C. v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 540 F.3d 794, 796 (8th Cir.2008) (explaining that we review a district court’s discovery rulings for a gross abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 557 U.S. 935, 129 S.Ct. 2859, 174 L.Ed.2d 576 (2009); Sierra Club v. Robertson, 28 F.3d 753, 760 (8th Cir.1994) (reviewing the denial of a motion to file a second supplemental complaint for an abuse of discretion); U.S. Marshals Serv. v. Means, 741 F.2d 1053, 1059 (8th Cir.1984) (en banc) (emphasizing that a court should appoint an expert witness “only under compelling circumstances”).

We affirm the judgment of the District Court.

1

. The Honorable John A. Ross, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

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

PER CURIAM.

James I. Toney appeals from the order of the District Court 1 granting summary judgment to the defendants in Toney’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Toney, we conclude that summary judgment was proper for the reasons stated by the District Court. See Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d at 1108, 1112 (8th Cir.2006) (noting the summary judgment standard of review). We further conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in supervising the discovery process and the filing of pleadings or in its decisions to deny the appointment of counsel and an expert. See Phillips v. Jasper Cnty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir.2006) (‘We will reverse a court’s denial of appointed counsel only if it constitutes an abuse of discretion.”); Level 3 Commc’ns, L.L.C. v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 540 F.3d 794, 796 (8th Cir.2008) (explaining that we review a district court’s discovery rulings for a gross abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 557 U.S. 935, 129 S.Ct. 2859, 174 L.Ed.2d 576 (2009); Sierra Club v. Robertson, 28 F.3d 753, 760 (8th Cir.1994) (reviewing the denial of a motion to file a second supplemental complaint for an abuse of discretion); U.S. Marshals Serv. v. Means, 741 F.2d 1053, 1059 (8th Cir.1984) (en banc) (emphasizing that a court should appoint an expert witness “only under compelling circumstances”).

We affirm the judgment of the District Court.

1

. The Honorable John A. Ross, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

556 F. App'x 570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-toney-v-michael-hakala-ca8-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack