Case Name: Lacey Kurt PAIGE Plaintiff-Appellant v. Unknown TABER, Correctional Officer, et al. Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-27
Citations: 699 F. App'x 585
Docket Number: No. 16-3801
Parties: Lacey Kurt PAIGE Plaintiff-Appellant v. Unknown TABER, Correctional Officer, et al. Defendants-Appellees
Judges: Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 585–585

Head Matter:
Lacey Kurt PAIGE Plaintiff-Appellant v. Unknown TABER, Correctional Officer, et al. Defendants-Appellees
No. 16-3801
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: October 26, 2017
Filed: October 27, 2017
Lacey Kurt Paige, Pro Se
Eileen Ruppe Krispin, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendants-Appellees
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Missouri inmate Lacey Paige appeals the district court's adverse judgment entered upon a jury verdict in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action. He argues that the district court improperly overruled his objections to a defense witness's testimony, held the jury instruction conference before the defense presented its evidence, and prevented him from calling a witness.
After careful review of the trial record, we conclude: (i) the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Paige's objections to testimony by the defense witness that was not contrary to the witness's pretrial affidavit and was based on the witness's general knowledge and knowledge acquired through his review of records prepared in ordinary course of business, see Allied Sys., Ltd, v. Teamsters Auto. Transp. Chauffeurs, 304 F.3d 785, 792 (8th Cir. 2002); (ii) the court did not commit plain error with regard to the timing of the instruction conference, see Lighting & Power Servs. v. Roberts, 354 F.3d 817, 820 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 51; and (iii) the court did not prevent Paige from calling a witness, but rather reasonably exercised its discretion in enforcing an agreement regarding the order in which witnesses subject to time constraints would be called, see Grayson v. Ross, 454 F.3d 802, 812 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm.
. The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.