Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03098/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03098-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3098

___________

Kenneth Hunt, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Harold Smith, Officer, Marianna, *

AR, in his individual and official * [UNPUBLISHED]

capacities, et al., *

*

Appellees. *

__________

Submitted: June 22, 2010

Filed: July 6, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Hunt appeals the district court’s1

 two orders granting partial summary

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit asserting numerous claims against the City of

Marianna, Arkansas, and various City officials, and the entry of judgment on a jury

verdict on the remaining claim.

Appellate Case: 09-3098 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2010 Entry ID: 3680631
2

We address only those claims that Hunt has not waived on appeal, see Meyers

v. Starke, 420 F. 3d 738, 742-43 (8th Cir. 2005); and we decline to consider any new

claims or allegations, see Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004).

-2-

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. See Mack v. Dillon, 594

F.3d 620, 622 (8th Cir. 2010).2

 As to the first order, we agree with the district court

that Hunt’s claims against the City of Marianna and various City officials were based

on speculation. See Binkley v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 602 F.3d 928, 931 (8th Cir.

2010) (to survive summary judgment, non-moving party must provide sufficient

probative evidence based on more than conjecture or speculation). The court did not

err in denying Hunt more time to serve one defendant who was sued for his actions

as Hunt’s public defender. See Gentry v. City of Lee’s Summit, 10 F.3d 1340, 1342-

43 (8th Cir. 1993) (public defender not a state actor under § 1983). As to the second

order, which the court was not precluded from entertaining, Hunt’s probable-cause

challenge to his December 2000 arrest fails because the resulting convictions were

dismissed on appeal for lack of a speedy trial, not on their merits, see Brown v.

Willey, 391 F.3d 968, 969-70 (8th Cir. 2004) (per curiam), and the court did not abuse

its discretion in denying Hunt’s motion to reconsider, see Sanders v. Clemco Indus.,

862 F.2d 161, 168-70 (8th Cir. 1988).

Finally, we reject Hunt’s challenge to the jury verdict. We do not second guess

a jury’s credibility determination, see Parkhurst v. Belt, 567 F.3d 995, 1002 (8th Cir.

2009), and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hunt’s motions for

recusal, see Dossett v. First State Bank, 399 F.3d 940, 953 (8th Cir. 2005) (adverse

judicial rulings rarely constitute valid basis for recusal).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We grant Hunt’s motions to

supplement the record.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3098 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2010 Entry ID: 3680631