Robert Diggs v. Sheriff Jim Arnott

562 F. App'x 541

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: April 24, 2014
• Docket: 13-1632
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal, Robert Diggs challenges the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment disposing of his three consolidated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints, and he challenges two adverse district court orders related to a motion he filed seeking a third extension of time to file a summary judgment response.

We first conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Diggs’s third motion for an extension of time to file a summary judgment response, or in denying his post-judgment motion for reconsideration of that denial. See Soliman v. Johanns, 412 F.3d 920, 921 (8th Cir.2005) (district court’s denial of request for extension to file summary judgment response reviewed for abuse of discretion); Griffin v. Super Valu, 218 F.3d 869, 870-71 (8th Cir.2000) (absent abuse of discretion, appellate court will not reverse denial of post-judgment relief).

We further conclude that the district court’s summary judgment decision was proper with respect to Diggs’s claims asserting constitutional violations related to the Ramadan diet he received as a pretrial detainee. 2 See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)(3) (if party fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), court may grant summary judgment based on motion and supporting materials); Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 982 (de novo review standard); see also Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446, 449 (8th Cir.1992) (prisoners have right to nutritionally adequate food; prison officials are entitled to judgment as matter of law when prisoner presents no evidence that food was nutritionally inadequate or dangerous to prisoner’s health).

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

1 . The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

2 . None of the remaining claims in Diggs's complaints have been meaningfully argued on appeal. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir.2004) (claim not meaningfully argued in opening brief is waived).