Richard A. Mathis v. John Mathes

Eighth Circuit

Richard A. Mathis v. John Mathes

170 F. App'x 985

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 20, 2006

Docket04-3569

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 170 F. App'x 985 (Richard A. Mathis v. John Mathes) 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

Richard A. Mathis v. John Mathes, 170 F. App'x 985 (8th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Richard A. Mathis appeals the district court’s 1 grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having reviewed the record, this court agrees that Mathis’s bare assertions — without the support of exhibits, affidavits or sworn statements— do not establish a genuine issue of material fact. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), (e); Janis v. Biesheuvel, 428 F.3d 795, 799 (8th Cir. 2005); Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir.2004) (de novo standard of review). Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel because it cited a case outlining the requisite factors, which it considered in determining there would be no fundamental injustice. See Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir.1996). Finally, the district court is under no obligation to give pro se prisoners notice of summary judgment requirements. See Beck v. Skon, 253 F.3d 330, 333 (8th Cir. 2001).

Thus, for the reasons explained in the district court’s opinion, this court affirms. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable James E. Gritzner, 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

PER CURIAM.

Richard A. Mathis appeals the district court’s 1 grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having reviewed the record, this court agrees that Mathis’s bare assertions — without the support of exhibits, affidavits or sworn statements— do not establish a genuine issue of material fact. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), (e); Janis v. Biesheuvel, 428 F.3d 795, 799 (8th Cir. 2005); Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir.2004) (de novo standard of review). Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel because it cited a case outlining the requisite factors, which it considered in determining there would be no fundamental injustice. See Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir.1996). Finally, the district court is under no obligation to give pro se prisoners notice of summary judgment requirements. See Beck v. Skon, 253 F.3d 330, 333 (8th Cir. 2001).

Thus, for the reasons explained in the district court’s opinion, this court affirms. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 F. App'x 985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-a-mathis-v-john-mathes-ca8-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack