Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03382/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03382-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Vinita Park
Appellee
Bonnie Poehl
Appellant
Carl Randolph
Appellee
Vinita Park Police Department
Not Party

Document Text:

1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3382

___________

Bonnie Poehl, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Carl Randolph, Officer; City of Vinita *

Park, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees, *

*

Vinita Park Police Department, *

*

Defendant. *

___________

Submitted: May 1, 2008

Filed: May 6, 2008

___________

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Bonnie Poehl appeals following the district court’s1

 order granting partial

summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, and the court’s later order

dismissing the remaining counts following a jury trial on her claims arising from

Appellate Case: 06-3382 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2008 Entry ID: 3430727
-2-

sexual misconduct. We find no basis for reversal and Poehl has provided none. First,

having chosen an advocate to speak on her behalf, she was bound by her counsel’s

decision to dismiss voluntarily the claims against the City of Vinita Park Police

Department. See Glover v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 150 F.3d 908, 909-10 (8th Cir.

1998). Second, as to the grant of summary judgment on her claims against the City

of Vinita Park, she challenges only the district court’s conclusion--which is legally

correct--that she could not hold the City liable on her state claims under a respondeat

superior theory. See Meyers v. Starke, 420 F.3d 738, 742-43 (8th Cir. 2005) (to be

reviewable issue must be presented in brief with some specificity, and failure to do so

can result in waiver); Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239, 245-46 (Mo. 1997) (en

banc) (under doctrine of respondeat superior, principal is liable for agent’s acts that

are within scope of employment and done as means or for purpose of doing work

assigned by principal; intentional sexual misconduct was not within scope of priest’s

employment). Finally, her challenges to various evidentiary rulings, claims of

unobjected-to instructional error, and the timing of the jury trial, to the extent these

challenges are sufficiently developed in the brief to warrant appellate review, are all

meritless. See Moran v. Clarke, 296 F.3d 638, 649 (8th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (to

warrant review of evidentiary ruling, issue must be presented on appeal in

meaningfully developed manner); Cross v. Cleaver, 142 F.3d 1059, 1067-68 (8th Cir.

1998) (claimed instructional error must be shown to be prejudicial, and if party fails

to object to instruction before jury retires, review is only for plain error); Penn v. Iowa

State Bd. of Regents, 999 F.2d 305, 307 (8th Cir. 1993) (district courts have duty and

power to manage their dockets and this court will not intervene absent abuse of

discretion). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Poehl’s motions

to supplement the record, and we decline to revisit the issue of appointment of counsel

for appeal. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3382 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2008 Entry ID: 3430727