United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-1037

___________

Tara Davenport, by her legal guardian *

and natural mother, Jean Belt, et al., *

*

Plaintiffs - Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Young Men's Christian Association, *

et al., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendants - Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: October 22, 1999

Filed: November 16, 1999

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, ROSS and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In December 1995, plaintiffs participated in a YMCA-sponsored tournament in

Rapid City, South Dakota, as members of the Loneman School’s girls’ basketball team.

The Loneman School team won its semi-final game against the Hermosa School. When

the Loneman team and its coach returned to the gym for the championship game, two

YMCA volunteers advised them of a complaint by the Hermosa School coach that the

Loneman team included boys. To resolve this novel dispute, the female YMCA

volunteer and a female chaperone for the Loneman team took the Loneman players,
1The HONORABLE RICHARD H. BATTEY, then Chief Judge now a Senior

Judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.

-2-

who were all ten to twelve-year-old Native American girls, into a restroom where the

girls demonstrated that each was in fact a female. The Loneman team then played in

the championship game, and the tourney ended.

Two years later, the mothers of the Loneman School players, acting on their own

behalf and as the girls’ legal guardians, commenced this action against the Loneman

School, the Custer School District (where the Hermosa School is located), and the

YMCA and its tournament director. Plaintiffs alleged that the wrongful conduct of

defendants during and after this incident made the girls feel depressed, humiliated, and

embarrassed. Count 1 of the complaint asserted claims of invasion of privacy,

intentional infliction of mental distress, mental anguish, unlawful imprisonment, and

false arrest. Count 2 sounded in negligence. Count 3 alleged unlawful race, sex, and

age discrimination in violation of federal law.

The district court1 granted defendants summary judgment and dismissed

plaintiffs’ federal law claims, concluding that plaintiffs had failed to come forward with

evidence tending to prove that the conduct of any defendant was motivated by race,

sex, or age discrimination. The court granted summary judgment dismissing with

prejudice all state law claims against the Loneman School on the ground that plaintiffs’

exclusive remedy is under the Federal Tort Claims Act because the Loneman School

is operated by the Oglala Sioux Tribe pursuant to a grant from the Bureau of Indian

Affairs and is therefore deemed to be part of the BIA for FTCA purposes. See

generally Big Owl v. United States, 961 F. Supp. 1304, 1307-08 (D.S.D. 1997).

Finally, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state

law claims against the other defendants and dismissed those claims without prejudice.
-3-

Plaintiffs appeal all of these rulings except the dismissal of their age

discrimination claims. Plaintiffs first argue that the district court erred in granting

summary judgment before discovery was complete. This claim is without merit

because plaintiffs fail to show that they sought a continuance from the district court to

complete additional discovery that was necessary for a proper determination of the

summary judgment motions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f); Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d

1234, 1238-39 (8th Cir. 1997). Regarding plaintiffs’ tort claims against the Loneman

School, we agree with the district court that the FTCA applies, but we have some doubt

whether the FTCA forecloses plaintiffs’ claims for unlawful imprisonment and false

arrest. See 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). However, even if these claims are outside the FTCA,

we conclude that summary judgment dismissing them on the merits was appropriate.

See Blitz v. Boog, 328 F.2d 596, 600 (2d Cir.) cert. denied, 379 U.S. 855 (1964). With

regard to all other issues raised by plaintiffs on appeal, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 29, 1998.

See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Plaintiffs’ motion to supplement

the record on appeal is denied.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.