United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3588

___________

Thomas Pellegrino, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

State of South Dakota; Richard Mowell, * District of South Dakota.

Lawrence County Sheriff; John *

Fitzgerald, Lawrence County States * [UNPUBLISHED]

Attorney; Honorable Timothy Johns, *

Eight Judicial Circuit Judge; Northern *

Hills Public Defenders Office, in its *

entirety; Steve Lindquist, Administrator,*

South Dakota Human Services Center; *

Dr. Hartly Alsgaard, Psychiatrist; John *

Snyder, Social Worker; Liz Spivey, *

Clinical Psychologist; Lawrence *

County, South Dakota; Dale Larson, *

Lawrence County Jail Administrator; *

Rich Niesent, Jailer, Lawrence County *

Sheriff's Department; Dwane Russell, *

Chief Deputy Sheriff, Lawrence *

County, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: June 16, 2000

 Filed: June 19, 2000

___________
1The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota. 

-2-

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

South Dakota inmate Thomas Pellegrino appeals following the District Court’s1

adverse grant of summary judgment in his civil rights action claiming that numerous

persons and entities violated his constitutional rights in relation to his criminal case, see

State v. Pellegrino, 577 N.W.2d 590 (S.D. 1998), and at various times during his

incarceration.

Liberally construing Pellegrino’s notice of appeal as encompassing the

underlying orders he challenges, we find no abuse of discretion in the discovery rulings

and no error of law in the grant of judgment in favor of defendants. See Buckley v.

Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993) (prosecutorial immunity); Polk County v.

Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 324-25 (1981) (public defender does not act under color of

state law in performing lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to defendant in state

criminal proceeding); Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1243-44 (8th Cir. 1997) (in

light of medical records which demonstrate that treatment was given, plaintiff must

provide more evidence than her own opinion that her medical needs were disregarded);

In re Missouri Dep’t of Natural Resources, 105 F.3d 434, 435 (8th Cir. 1997) (scope

of review of discovery orders is both narrow and deferential); Duty v. City of

Springdale, 42 F.3d 460, 462-63 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (judicial immunity);

McGautha v. Jackson County, Mo., Collections Dep’t, 36 F.3d 53, 55-56 (8th Cir.

1994) (municipal liability arises if injury results from action pursuant to official

municipal policy), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1133 (1995); Cooper v. Delo, 997 F.2d 376,

377 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (complaint subject to dismissal if allegations of

conspiracy are inadequate; plaintiff must allege facts suggesting mutual understanding
-3-

between defendants or meeting of minds); Moses v. Parwatikar, 813 F.2d 891, 892 (8th

Cir.) (immunity of psychiatrist appointed by court to perform competency evaluation),

cert. denied, 484 U.S. 832 (1987); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir.

1985) (although liberally construed, pro se pleading must contain specific facts

supporting its conclusions; general and conclusory allegations are insufficient).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Pellegrino’s motion to order

appellees to produce certain documents is denied. 

A true copy.

Attest:

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