Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01744/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01744-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Joe J. Volpe, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, 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. 10-1744

___________

Michael Brazell, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

D. W. Tate, Captain, Cummins *

Unit, ADC; Lequista Swopes, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Officer, Cummins Unit, ADC, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 5, 2010

Filed: August 12, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Arkansas inmate Michael Brazell appeals from

the judgment entered by the district court1

 upon a jury verdict in favor of D. W. Tate

and Lequista Swopes (Defendants) on his claims of excessive use of force and failure

to protect. Proceeding pro se on appeal, Brazell argues that (1) he received ineffective

Appellate Case: 10-1744 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2010 Entry ID: 3692944
-2-

assistance of counsel at his jury trial; (2) “someone” tampered with, removed, or

destroyed a surveillance videotape that purportedly had evidentiary value; (3)

Defendants committed perjury; and (4) Defendants violated court procedures by

failing to call certain witnesses who had been included on Defendants’ pretrial witness

list. For the reasons that follow, we find no basis for reversal.

First, Brazell’s arguments regarding the competency of his trial counsel are

unavailing. See Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988) (there is no

statutory or constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in civil case; remedy

for ineffective assistance of appointed counsel in civil action is legal malpractice suit).

Second, Brazell failed to preserve any evidentiary issue with regard to the surveillance

videotape, and no plain error occurred. See Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Bluewood, Inc., 560

F.3d 798, 805 (8th Cir. 2009) (when issue has not been adequately preserved, this

court reviews for plain error; review is narrowly circumscribed and this court will

reverse only in exceptional case in which error has seriously affected fairness,

integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings); Foster v. Delo, 39 F.3d 873,

880-81 (8th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (claim of trial court error in excluding testimony

procedurally defaulted by defendant’s failure to make offer of proof). Third, Brazell’s

conclusory allegation of perjury is not a ground for appeal. See United States v.

Stroh, 176 F.3d 439, 440 (8th Cir. 1999) (jury verdicts are not lightly overturned; this

court can neither weigh evidence nor assess credibility of witnesses). Last, Brazell

failed to preserve his objection to Defendants’ failure to call certain witnesses, and in

any event they were not required to call every witness on their pretrial list. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(A) (party must provide to other parties, inter alia, names of each

witness party expects to present or those it may call if need arises); see also Cincinnati

Ins. Co., 560 F.3d at 805 (plain-error review).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 10-1744 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2010 Entry ID: 3692944