Case Name: Richard L. PURCELL, Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-08
Citations: 420 F. App'x 650
Docket Number: No. 11-1263
Parties: Richard L. PURCELL, Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, Appellee.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 420
Pages: 650–651

Head Matter:
Richard L. PURCELL, Appellant, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, Appellee.
No. 11-1263.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: July 5, 2011.
Filed: July 8, 2011.
Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Richard Purcell appeals following the adverse grant of summary judgment by the District Court in his civil action claiming retaliation for filing safety complaints. After careful de novo review, see Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir.2006), we agree with the District Court that under the statute at issue as it existed during the events underlying this complaint, 49 U.S.C. § 20109(a) (2006), Purcell was not entitled to relief. We decline his invitation to retroactively apply a subsequent amendment to the statute, see Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 266-68, 280, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994), and we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in staying discovery, see Steinbuch v. Cutler, 518 F.3d 580, 590 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 223, 172 L.Ed.2d 242 (2008).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Thomas J. Shields, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).