Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02993/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02993-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2993

___________

Greg Scher; Darren R. Mohr, *

*

Appellants, *

*

Ryan M. Thompson; James Mitchell, *

*

Plaintiffs, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri

*

Joe Ortwerth; A. L. Stahl, Warden, * [UNPUBLISHED]

St. Charles County Jail, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 7, 2005

 Filed: November 3, 2005

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Greg Scher and Darren Mohr, two former pretrial detainees at the St. Charles

County Jail (Jail), appeal from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

 for the

Appellate Case: 04-2993 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2005 Entry ID: 1970914
-2-

Eastern District of Missouri granting summary judgment to Jail officials in this 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action. For reversal, Scher and Mohr argue the district court erred in

granting summary judgment; in denying their motions for appointment of counsel, to

compel discovery, and to amend their complaint; and in dismissing one named

plaintiff and one named defendant. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the

judgment of the district court.

Upon de novo review, see Luckes v. County of Hennepin, 415 F.3d 936, 938-

39 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review), we conclude that the district court properly

granted summary judgment to Jail officials on the conditions-of-confinement, accessto-courts, and medical-services claims, because Scher and Mohr did not adduce

evidence showing their rights were violated. We thus affirm for the reasons stated in

the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to

appoint counsel, to compel discovery, or to allow amendment of the complaint, see

Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444, 447 (8th Cir. 1996) (appointing counsel); Firefighters’

Inst. for Racial Equal. ex rel. Anderson v. City of St. Louis, 220 F.3d 898, 903 (8th

Cir. 2000) (compelling discovery), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 921 (2001); Thompson-El

v. Jones, 876 F.2d 66, 67 (8th Cir. 1989) (amending complaint); or in dismissing one

defendant for lack of service of process, see Bullock v. United States, 160 F.3d 441,

442 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Last, we see no reversible error in the district court’s

dismissal of one plaintiff whose claims were not distinct from Scher’s or Mohr’s. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2993 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2005 Entry ID: 1970914