Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02094/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02094-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jeff Bloomberg
Appellee
Bob Dooley
Appellee
Healthcare Medical Technology
Appellee
Doneen Hollingsworth
Appellee
Eugene Paul Huckins
Appellant
Michael Rost
Appellee
Herbert Saloum
Appellee
Roderick Schnaidt
Appellant
James H. Shaeffer
Appellee
South Dakota Department of Health
Appellee
Sharon Ven Osdel
Appellee
Doug Weber
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 04-2094

________________

Eugene Paul Huckins; Roderick

Schnaidt, on behalf of themselves

and for other prisoners similarly

situated,

Appellants,

v.

Doneen Hollingsworth; South

Dakota Department of Health;

Michael Rost; Healthcare Medical

Technology; Doug Weber; Bob

Dooley; Jeff Bloomberg; Herbert

Saloum; James H. Shaeffer; Sharon

Ven Osdel,

Appellees.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

District of South Dakota.

[UNPUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: February 14, 2005

 Filed: July 7, 2005

________________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit

Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 04-2094 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2005 Entry ID: 1924934
1

The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota.

-2-

Eugene Paul Huckins and Roderick Schnaidt, both paraplegics, were formerly

inmates at the South Dakota State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and the

Mike Durfee State Prison in Springfield, South Dakota. Huckins and Schnaidt sued

the South Dakota Department of Health, various prison officials, and various

physicians that treated them while incarcerated (collectively “the defendants”),

alleging deliberate indifference to their medical needs in violation of the Eighth

Amendment to the United States Constitution, violations of their Fourteenth

Amendment rights to equal protection under the law, violations of the Americans with

Disabilities Act, violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and negligence. The

district court1

 granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all of

Huckins’s and Schnaidt’s claims. 

When recounting the facts of this case in its order granting the defendants’

motion for summary judgment, the district court noted that Huckins and Schnaidt

responded to the defendants’ statements of material facts by paragraph number as

required by District of South Dakota Local Rule 56.1(C) but did not fully comply

with that rule by submitting their own concise statement of material facts as to which

they contend there exists a genuine issue to be tried. Rather than fully complying

with Local Rule 56.1(C), Huckins and Schnaidt provided the district court affidavits

in which they detailed their alleged mistreatment by prison authorities and medical

staff. District of South Dakota Local Rule 56.1(D) provides that “[a]ll material facts

set forth in the statement required to be served by the moving party will be deemed

to be admitted unless controverted by the statement to be served by the opposing

party.” Following its own local rules, the district court recounted the defendants’

statements of facts verbatim but noted whenever Huckins and Schnaidt properly

disputed a fact and the ground for their dispute. 

Appellate Case: 04-2094 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2005 Entry ID: 1924934
-3-

On appeal, Huckins and Schnaidt argue that by failing to accept all of the facts

alleged in their affidavits, the district court failed to evaluate the facts in the light

most favorable to their claims. 

This Court reviews a district court’s application of its own local rules for abuse

of discretion. Northwest Bank & Trust Co. v. First Ill. Nat’l Bank, 354 F.3d 721, 725

(8th Cir. 2003). Huckins and Schnaidt do not contend that the district court erred in

its application of its own local rules, and they do not provide an explanation why their

counsel failed to properly present their version of the facts. Thus, we hold the district

court did not abuse its discretion in applying its own local rules even though those

rules prevented it from considering some facts improperly alleged by Huckins and

Schnaidt that might have been relevant to the summary judgment motion. See

Northwest Bank, 354 F.3d at 724-25 (holding that the district court did not abuse its

discretion by applying local rules that excluded some of the material facts offered in

opposition to a motion for summary judgment); Wright v. S. Ark. Reg’l Health Ctr.,

Inc., 800 F.2d 199, 203 n.3 (8th Cir. 1986) (deferring to the district court’s decision

that a procedural omission under local rules was not fatal but implying that had the

court granted summary judgment because of a similar procedural default, this court

would have affirmed).

Huckins and Schnaidt also argue that the district court erred in granting the

Appellees’ motion for summary judgment on each of their claims. This court reviews

the district court’s granting of a motion for summary judgment de novo. Barnhart v.

UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 179 F.3d 583, 587 (8th Cir. 1999). After carefully

reviewing the record, we find no mistakes of law or errors of fact. Therefore, for the

reasons stated in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion in this

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2094 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/07/2005 Entry ID: 1924934