United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 23, 2019*

Decided October 23, 2019

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 18-3024

ROBERT HOSKINS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

THOMAS MEZO, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

No. 3:14-cv-01427-DGW

Donald G. Wilkerson,

Magistrate Judge.

O R D E R

Robert Hoskins, a prisoner held at Menard Correctional Center, maintains that 

prison officials were deliberately indifferent toward unsanitary conditions in his cell. 

His Eighth Amendment suit went to trial, and the jury found in favor of the defendants. 

He moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, but the magistrate judge

denied the motion. On appeal, Hoskins primarily challenges that denial. But he did not 

file a notice of appeal from the order denying the motion, so we lack jurisdiction to 

consider that challenge. We otherwise affirm the judgment.

 

* We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the briefs 

and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would 

not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 18-3024 Page 2

When Hoskins was transferred to Menard Correctional Center, he was assigned 

to a cell that he says was contaminated with feces, blood, food waste, and bugs. He

contends that he asked a first-shift officer for cleaning supplies but was rebuffed. Later 

that day, he continues, he repeated his request to a second-shift officer, but that officer 

also refused assistance. That night, he asked once more of a third-shift officer and again 

was brushed off. 

Two days later, he turned to his counselor, telling her that he had asked officers 

on all three shifts for cleaning supplies but they all refused even though they could see 

that his cell was unsanitary. Hoskins asked the counselor to help him file grievances

against the officers, but he says that she responded by telling him to “stop crying.”

Hoskins filed grievances against his counselor and the three officers who refused 

to give him cleaning supplies. He also sent letters to the warden and the director of the 

Department of Corrections. Hoskins contends that the director ordered the warden to 

fix the problem, but she took no action. 

Hoskins then sued the warden, the counselor, and the three officers for refusing 

to provide him a sanitary cell in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The parties 

consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

During discovery, Hoskins moved, first, to compel the defendants to respond to 

his interrogatories and, then, to produce documents pertaining to his cell and any 

health inspections of it. But the magistrate judge promptly dismissed these motions 

without prejudice upon recruiting counsel for Hoskins, so that counsel could evaluate 

how to proceed. Counsel did not renew the motions to compel or file any additional 

motions relating to discovery disputes. 

The case proceeded to trial, and the jury returned a verdict for the defendants.

Eight days after trial—and no longer represented by an attorney—Hoskins filed 

both a motion for reconsideration and a notice of appeal. In the motion, he attacked the 

sufficiency of the evidence and complained that he had not received all the requested 

documents pertaining to his cell conditions. Two days later, he moved for a new trial 

based on “newly discovered evidence”—an affidavit from a fellow prisoner who

worked as a porter cleaning cells in segregation and who disputed the defendants’ 

characterization of the prison’s policy for cleaning cells. 
No. 18-3024 Page 3

The magistrate judge denied both motions in a single order. The judge first 

denied Hoskins’s motion for reconsideration, concluding that the jury’s decision to 

credit the defendants’ testimony over Hoskins’s was not contrary to the manifest weight 

of the evidence. The judge also denied Hoskins’s request for relief based on newly 

discovered evidence. This evidence, the judge ruled, likely could have been obtained 

through discovery but, in any event, it was cumulative, immaterial, and not likely to 

have resulted in a different outcome at trial. Hoskins did not file a separate notice of 

appeal challenging that order.

On appeal, Hoskins forgoes challenging the jury verdict and instead primarily

contends that the magistrate judge erred by denying his motion for a new trial based on 

newly discovered evidence. But this argument is not properly before us. Under Federal 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(B)(ii), a party intending to challenge an order 

disposing of post-judgment motions—here, Hoskins’s motion requesting a new trial—

must file a notice of appeal or an amended notice of appeal within 28 days after the 

order has been entered. Hoskins filed his notice of appeal before the magistrate judge 

denied his motion for a new trial, and he did not thereafter file a new notice of appeal

or amend his notice to include an appeal of that order. We thus lack jurisdiction to 

consider any argument about Hoskins’s post-trial motion for a new trial. See Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 147 (2012). 

To the extent that Hoskins argues that the defendants improperly refused to 

comply with his discovery requests or that the magistrate judge erred by not 

compelling the defendants to disclose certain evidence, his contentions lack support. 

The record does not reflect that Hoskins’s counsel was improperly denied any 

information that she sought, and counsel did not renew Hoskins’s motions to compel.

See, e.g., Reed v. Freedom Mortg. Corp., 869 F.3d 543, 548–49 (7th Cir. 2017) (determining 

that counsel’s failure to compel production of documents foreclosed any argument

about “missing evidence”). Nor does Hoskins explain how any of the documents he 

sought would have affected his case or usefully supplemented the evidence that he had 

presented. In short, the record does not demonstrate that the magistrate judge erred in 

resolving any discovery dispute.

We have considered Hoskins’s remaining arguments, and none has merit. 

AFFIRMED