## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 1- 14 18

__ __ __ __ __ _ Ald ifo ns o F ed eri co Gon zal es , Jr., *

* App el la nt , *

* App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s
v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e
* East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s. Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* [UNPUBLISHED] App el le e. *

__ __ __ __ __ _ Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 1, 2 01 1 Fi le d: Nov em

be r 16 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re WOL LMAN, SMITH, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _ PER CURI AM.

In th is act io n br ou gh t un de r th e Fed eral Tort Cl ai m s Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 26 71 et se q., Ald ifo ns o Gon za l e s , J r. ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r gr an ti ng 1

su m m ary jud gm ent fo r the U nit ed State s an d de nyin g hi s m ot io n to co m pe l di sc ov ery. W e aff irm.

The H o n o r a b le D. Pri ce Mar sh al l, Jr ., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on of th e Hon or ab le Bet h Deere , Uni te d S t a t e s Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.W hi le a Bu reau of Pri so ns in m at e at th e Fed eral Co rrec ti on al In st it ut e at

Fo rres t Ci ty, Gon zal es was as sa ul te d b y ot he r in m at es an d su st ai ne d nu m ero us in juri es

. He al le ge d th e as sa ul t res ul te d fro m th e ne gl ig en ce of th e of fic er on du ty in hi s ho us in g un it on th e ev en in g in qu es ti o n , be cau se th e as si gn ed of fic er di d no t
pr ev en t i nm at es who were n ot ass ig ne d t o t he un it fro m en te rin g t he un it

.
Upo n de no vo rev ie w, we co n c l u d e su m m ary jud gm en t was pr op er. See Opp li ge r v. Uni te d S t at es , 6 37 F.3 d 88 9, 89 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w). W e ag ree wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at th e as si gn ed of fic er’s co nd uc t fel l w i t h i n th e di sc ret io na ry -fu nc ti on ex cep ti on to th e FTCA. Se e 2 8 U

. S.C. § 26 80 (a) (d is cret io na ry -fu nc ti on ex cep ti on to FTCA pr ecl ud es go ve rn m en t li ab il it y fo r cl ai m s ba se d on go ve rn m en t’s ex erci se or fai l u r e t o ex erci se di sc ret io na ry fu nc ti on ); Hart

v. Uni te d St at es , 63 0 F.3 d 10 85 , 10 88 (8 th Ci r. 20 1 1 ) (d is cret io na ry -fu nc ti on

ex cep ti on ap pl ie s whe n co nd uc t at is su e was di sc ret io na ry an d was ba se d on

co ns id erat io ns of pu bl ic po li cy ). Non e of th e st at ut es , re g u l a t i on s, or po li ci es Gon zal es id en ti fie d req ui red th e as s i gn ed of fic er to en su re th at no no n- res id en t in m at e en te red th e ho us in g un it , an d th e Uni te d Stat es pro vi de d e vi de nc e th at th ere

was no su ch affi rm at iv e req ui r e men t , a n d th at po li cy co ns id erat io ns m ad e su ch a req ui rem en t i m

pr act ic ab le

.

W e al so co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de nyin g Gon zal es ’s m ot io n to c o mp e l f u r th er di sc ov ery. See Kil pa tri ck v. Kin g, 49 9 F.3 d 75 9, 76 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (d en ia l of m ot io n to co m p e l d is co ve ry rev ie wed fo r gr os s ab us e o f di sc ret io n)

.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-