Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04280/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04280-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4280

___________

Scotty Iverson Floyd, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Marty C. Anderson, Warden; T. C. *

Peterson, Warden; Dr. George Santini; * [UNPUBLISHED]

P.A. C. Reudy; P.A. Edmonds; P.A. Liz *

Evans; Asst. H.S.A. Val Encarnanze; *

P.A. Bea Glavinovich; H.S.A. *

Chapman; C.R.N.P. Muth; H.S.A. *

Furtenz; H.S.A. Z. Gutierrez; *

Does 1-20, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 1, 2007

Filed: February 22, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 05-4280 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2007 Entry ID: 3280910
1

The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

Raymond L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

Federal inmate Scotty Iverson Floyd appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant

of summary judgment in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Having carefully reviewed

the record, we agree with the district court that Floyd failed to create any trialworthy

issues on his Eighth Amendment claims. See Alberson v. Norris, 458 F.3d 762, 765

(8th Cir. 2006) (summary judgment standard of review; disagreement with treatment

decisions does not rise to level of Eighth Amendment violation, and to show

deliberate indifference, plaintiff must show more than even gross negligence); Moody

v. St. Charles County, 23 F.3d 1410, 1412 (8th Cir. 1994) (party seeking to defeat

summary judgment motion must substantiate allegations with sufficient probative

evidence to permit finding in his favor based on more than speculation or conjecture).

We reject Floyd’s arguments about discovery, because he did not properly seek

postponement of the summary judgment ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

56(f). See Stanback v. Best Diversified Prods., Inc., 180 F.3d 903, 911 (8th Cir. 1999)

(discussing requirements under Rule 56(f)). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R.

47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4280 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2007 Entry ID: 3280910