Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02247/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02247-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2247

___________

Lonnie D. Snelling, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Publishers Clearing House; Campus *

Subscriptions, Inc.; PHC Executives, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Inc.; Deborah J. Holland; Robin B. *

Smith; Andrew C. Goldberg; Margarete *

Thuemmler; Dorothy Addeo; William *

Delano; Peter E. Derow; Patrick R. *

Edwards; Ira D. Hall; William B. *

O’Connor; John Princiotta, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 4, 2006

Filed: May 11, 2006

___________

Before MELLOY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 05-2247 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2006 Entry ID: 2043625
1

The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

-2-

Lonnie Snelling appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment, and denial of his post-judgment motions brought under Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure 59 and 60, in his suit alleging violations of Missouri law and the

federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

As to evidentiary matters, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

admitting various challenged affidavits and documents submitted by defendants, see

Sellers v. Mineta, 350 F.3d 706, 711 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review); nor did the

court abuse its discretion in not granting Snelling’s motion to compel discovery, see

Lee v. Armontrout, 991 F.2d 487, 489 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (standard of review),

cert. denied, 510 U.S. 875 (1993). Further, Snelling’s argument that he lacked

sufficient time to conduct discovery prior to summary judgment is without merit

because he did not seek a continuance under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f).

See Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1238 (8th Cir. 1997).

Following de novo review of the record in the light most favorable to Snelling,

see Evers v. Alliant Technosystems, Inc., 241 F.3d 948, 953 (8th Cir. 2001), we affirm

the grant of summary judgment to defendants. Snelling failed to provide evidence

raising genuine issues of material fact as to whether there was a sweepstakes, whether

defendants’ various representations were false, and whether defendants engaged in a

plan or scheme to defraud. See Yarborough v. Devilbiss Air Power, Inc., 321 F.3d

728, 730 (8th Cir. 2003) (case founded on speculation or suspicion is insufficient to

survive summary judgment motion); Rose-Maston v. NME Hospitals, Inc., 133 F.3d

1104, 1109 (8th Cir. 1998) (conclusory affidavits, standing alone, cannot create

genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment); Wisdom v. First

Midwest Bank, 167 F.3d 402, 406 (8th Cir. 1999) (to establish RICO claim predicated

on mail and wire fraud, plaintiff must establish, inter alia, plan or scheme to defraud);

Appellate Case: 05-2247 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2006 Entry ID: 2043625
-3-

Groothand v. Schlueter, 949 S.W.2d 923, 927 (Mo. App. 1997) (where party who

alleges fraudulent inducement to contract seeks to sue at law for damages, party must

establish, inter alia, falsity of representation); Colgan v. Washington Realty Co., 879

S.W.2d 686, 689 (Mo. App. 1994) (to maintain cause of action for negligent

misrepresentation, party must show, inter alia, representation was false).

The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Snelling’s postjudgment motions. See Flannery v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 160 F.3d 425, 426-28

(8th Cir. 1998) (motion under Rule 59(e) to set aside summary judgment fails where

summary judgment was correctly decided); Atkinson v. Prudential Property Co., 43

F.3d 367, 371 (8th Cir. 1994) (district court’s decision whether or not to grant Rule

60(b) motion will be reversed only for clear abuse of discretion).

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2247 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/11/2006 Entry ID: 2043625