Case ID: f-appx_226/html/0648-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BECK, Appellant, v. Erik William SKON; David Crist; Dr. Christopher Ceman, Appellees.
    No. 06-2756.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 18, 2007.
    Filed: June 26, 2007.
    Beck, Stillwater, MN, Pro Se.
    Mark Bernard Levinger, Attorney General’s Office, Mark Wells Hardy, Geraghty & O’Loughlin, St. Paul, MN, for Appellees.
    Before COLLOTON, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    [UNPUBLISHED]
   PER CURIAM.

In this appeal following remand, see Beck v. Skon, 253 F.3d 330 (8th Cir.2001), Minnesota inmate “Reverend” Beck appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having carefully reviewed the record, we find that summary judgment was properly granted for the reasons explained by the district court. See Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108,1112 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review). We also find that Beck’s discovery-related arguments are meritless, because he did not seek to postpone a ruling on summary judgment, as permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). See Stanback v. Best Diversified Prods., Inc., 180 F.3d 903, 911 (8th Cir.1999). To the extent Beck intended to challenge the district court’s denial of his recusal motions, that challenge fails as well. See Lefkowitz v. Citi-Equity Group, Inc., 146 F.3d 609, 611-12 (8th Cir.1998) (recusal motion cannot rest solely on adverse rulings).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.