Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03866/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03866-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Lewis M. Blanton, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3866

___________

Marvin Lidell Lott, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Bill Ferrell; Gary Mize; Jim Bonner, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Capt.; Scott County Jail; Scott County *

Sheriff’s Department, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 7, 2004

Filed: September 15, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Marvin Lott appeals from the district court’s1

 adverse entry

of judgment on a jury verdict and from its previous adverse grant of partial summary

judgment in Lott’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. In his July 2000 complaint, Lott sought

damages and injunctive relief from the Scott County Sheriff’s Department and Jail,

Appellate Case: 03-3866 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2004 Entry ID: 1811280 
-2-

Sheriff Bill Ferrell, and Jail employees Gary Mize and Jim Bonner. He alleged that

while he was a pretrial detainee, the defendants failed to protect him from an attack

by other inmates and then refused to provide him medical care for injuries he suffered

in the attack. After the district court granted summary judgment on all the claims

except the failure-to-protect claim against Mize, it appointed counsel for Lott. The

remaining claim was tried to a jury, and a verdict was rendered in favor of Mize. 

We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision not to appoint

counsel earlier. See Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996). We also reject

Lott’s arguments concerning the lack of representation during certain depositions, as

the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation does not apply in civil matters. See

Patrick v. City of Detroit, 906 F.2d 1108, 1110 (6th Cir. 1990). 

As to the adverse grant of partial summary judgment, see Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t

of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review), we note that Lott did

not specify in what capacity he was suing Ferrell and Bonner. Accordingly, they

were sued only in their official capacities and the claims against them were thus

essentially against Scott County. See Artis v. Francis Howell N. Band Booster Ass’n,

Inc., 161 F.3d 1178, 1182 (8th Cir. 1998) (if complaint does not specifically name

public official in individual capacity, it is presumed he is sued only in his official

capacity); cf. Spencer v. Knapheide Truck Equip. Co., 183 F.3d 902, 905 (8th Cir.

1999) (official-capacity claims against police board members must be treated as

claims brought against municipality), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1157 (2000). As the

district court observed, the claims against the Jail and Sheriff’s Department were also

essentially against the County. See Turney v. Waterbury, 375 F.3d 756, 761-62 (8th

Cir. 2004). We find that summary judgment was properly granted on the medicalcare and failure-to-protect claims against the Sheriff’s Department, the Jail, Ferrell,

and Bonner. Although Lott stated Ferrell and Bonner had a practice of denying

medical care after inmate beatings to hide their wrongdoing, this was an assertion

raised only in his unverified complaint amendment. See FDIC v. Bell, 106 F.3d 258,

Appellate Case: 03-3866 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/15/2004 Entry ID: 1811280 
-3-

263 (8th Cir. 1997) (arguments or allegations, without more, are insufficient to defeat

properly supported summary judgment motion). Further, only after the summary

judgment ruling did Lott assert that there were no policies on protection of inmates

and that Ferrell improperly permitted one jailer to be in charge of the entire jail. See

Turney, 375 F.3d at 761-62 (requirements for § 1983 claim against municipality). 

Lott’s remaining arguments about the admission of evidence at trial and the

jury’s verdict cannot be reviewed. Absent a trial transcript, it is unknown in what

context the evidence was presented; whether Lott objected to the evidence, or the

basis for the district court’s evidentiary rulings if he did object; and upon what

evidence the jury’s verdict was based. See Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters &

Joiners of Am., 827 F.2d 384, 384-86 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam), cert. denied, 484

U.S. 1071 (1988). 

The judgment is affirmed. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3866 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/15/2004 Entry ID: 1811280