Case Name: Stephen CAVANAUGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HALL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Fred Ruiz, Director; Jimmy Vann, Assistant Director; Darla Sparr, Sgt.; Carol Castleberry, Sgt.; Jason Conley, Sgt.; Debb Rea, Sgt., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-07-14
Citations: 667 F. App'x 576
Docket Number: No. 15-3492
Parties: Stephen CAVANAUGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HALL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Fred Ruiz, Director; Jimmy Vann, Assistant Director; Darla Sparr, Sgt.; Carol Castleberry, Sgt.; Jason Conley, Sgt.; Debb Rea, Sgt., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 576–576

Head Matter:
Stephen CAVANAUGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HALL COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Fred Ruiz, Director; Jimmy Vann, Assistant Director; Darla Sparr, Sgt.; Carol Castleberry, Sgt.; Jason Conley, Sgt.; Debb Rea, Sgt., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-3492
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: July 5, 2016
Filed: July 14, 2016
Stephen Cavanaugh, Central Square, NY, Pro Se.
Brandy Rae Johnson, Vincent Valentino, Valentino Law Office, Lincoln, NE, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Nebraska prisoner Stephen Cavanaugh appeals after the district court ruled adversely on his discovery-related motions, his motions seeking leave to amend his complaint, and the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.
To begin, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cqvanaugh's discovery-related motions or his motions seeking leave to amend his complaint. See Marmo v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 457 F.3d 748, 759 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court has broad discretion in establishing and enforcing progression order deadlines); Bell v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 160 F.3d 452, 454 (8th Cir. 1998) (denial of ipotion to amend complaint' reviewed for abuse of discretion).
We further conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. See Crain v. Bd. of Police Comm'rs, 920 F.2d 1402, 1405-06 (8th Cir. 1990) (de novo standard of review). Specifically, we agree that Cava-naugh effectively sued only Hall County, see Johnson v. Outboard Marine Corp., 172 F.3d 531, 535 (8th Cir. 1999), and that he failed as a matter of law to establish Hall County's liability, see Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997) (plaintiff seeking to impose liability on municipality under § 1983 is required to identify municipal policy or custom that caused injury); see also Bernini v. City of St. Paul, 665 F.3d 997, 1007-08 (8th Cir. 2012) (discussing liability based on official's poli-cymaking authority); Cowans v. Warren, 150 F.3d 910, 911-12 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (inmate may not state claim of retaliation where discipline was imparted for acts that prisoner was not entitled to perform).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Ne-braslta.