United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-3674

___________

Jason M. Green, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

David Raymond Newell; Paul Q. * Appeal from the United States

Koneck; Dennis Roof; Thomas * District Court for the

Robbins; Samuel Hoskins; Kent * District of Nebraska.

N. Whinnery; Herbert M. Fitle; *

Richard A. Cerveny; Paul C. * [UNPUBLISHED]

Pennington; Dennis Stecki; Wayne *

E. Melcher; R. Ourada, #812; M. Kiley, *

#1350; D. Moore, #0976; Thomas *

Shaffer; James Cisar; Gaylon Kuchel; *

Hal Daub; John Packett; Clay Michels; *

James N. Skinner; Martin Conboy; *

Margaret Lawse; Omaha Police *

Department; Omaha/Douglas County *

Building Commission; County of *

Douglas; City of Omaha; Jack *

O'Donnell; Mike London, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: November 30, 2001

Filed: December 14, 2001

___________

Before BOWMAN, BRIGHT, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
1

The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

2

The Honorable William G. Cambridge, then Chief Judge, United States

District Court for the District of Nebraska, now retired.

3

The Honorable Kathleen A. Jaudzemis, United States Magistrate Judge for the

District of Nebraska, and the Honorable Thomas D. Thalken, United States

Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska, to whom the case was referred for

disposition of pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

-2-

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jason M. Green appeals the district court's1

 judgment for defendants following

a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. He also appeals the district court's2

 earlier

dismissal of several of his claims and defendants, and the various discovery, case

management, and evidentiary rulings of the district court judges and two magistrate

judges.3

Having carefully reviewed the record, we determine that the dismissal of

portions of Green's complaint for failure to state a claim was proper, see Sisley v.

Leyendecker, 260 F.3d 849, 850 (8th Cir. 2001)(standard of review); that the evidence

amply supported the jury's verdict, see Cross v. Cleaver, 142 F.3d 1059, 1066 (8th Cir.

1998)(standard of review); that the trial rulings were proper, see DiCarlo v. Keller

Ladders, Inc., 211 F.3d 465, 467 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review); that the grant

of judgment as a matter of law on the one claim not submitted to the jury was proper,

see Kinserlow v. CMI Corp., 217 F.3d 1021, 1025 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of

review); that the various discovery orders were not an abuse of discretion, see In re

Missouri Dep't of Natural Res., 105 F.3d 434, 435 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of

review); that the orders declining to disqualify counsel were proper, see Cole v.

Ruidoso Mun. Sch., 43 F.3d 1373, 1383 (10th Cir. 1994) (standard of review); and
-3-

that the magistrate judge's decision not to recuse herself was not erroneous, see In re

Fed. Skywalk Cases, 690 F.2d 1175, 1183 (8th Cir. 1982)(standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Green's motion to file his reply

brief out of time is granted. The motion of the City of Omaha to strike Green's

appendix and part of his addendum is granted as to documents that were not before

the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

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