Case Name: Florence ROARK, Appellant, v. CITY OF COTTON PLANT, Appellee, Raymond Milton, individually and in his official capacity; Archie D. Roark; individually and in his official capacity, Cleotis Smith, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-24
Citations: 323 F. App'x 481
Docket Number: No. 07-2797
Parties: Florence ROARK, Appellant, v. CITY OF COTTON PLANT, Appellee, Raymond Milton, individually and in his official capacity; Archie D. Roark; individually and in his official capacity, Cleotis Smith, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants.
Judges: Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 323
Pages: 481–482

Head Matter:
Florence ROARK, Appellant, v. CITY OF COTTON PLANT, Appellee, Raymond Milton, individually and in his official capacity; Archie D. Roark; individually and in his official capacity, Cleotis Smith, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants.
No. 07-2797.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: April 21, 2009.
Filed: April 24, 2009.
Gary J. Barrett, Little Rock, AR, for Appellant.
Archie D. Roark, Cotton Plant Chief of Police, Cotton Plant, AR, pro se.
Cleotis Smith, Mayor of Cotton Plant, City of Cotton Plant, Cotton Plant, AR, pro se.
Raymond Milton, Cotton Plant, AR, pro se.
Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Florence Roark appeals the district court's orders denying sanctions and default judgment against the City of Cotton Plant (City) and granting judgment as a matter of law (JAML) in favor of the City in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The district court gave valid reasons for its rulings, and we thus find no abuse of discretion in its denial of default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, see Norsyn, Inc. v. Desai, 351 F.3d 825, 828 (8th Cir.2003) (standard of review), or in its denial of discovery sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, see Crump v. Versa Prods., Inc., 400 F.3d 1104, 1110 (8th Cir.2005) (standard of review). We find no error in the grant of JAML to the City, because Roark failed to offer evidence of a City policy or custom relevant to her claims. See Catipovic v. Peoples Cmty. Health Clinic, Inc., 401 F.3d 952, 956 (8th Cir.2005) (de novo standard of review; for JAML to be granted, all evidence should point one way and not be susceptible to reasonable inferences sustaining nonmovant's position); see also Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park, Minn., 486 F.3d 385, 389-93 (8th Cir.2007) (en banc) (requirements for municipal liability under § 1983); Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Leahey Constr. Co., 219 F.3d 519, 546 (6th Cir.2000) (while JAML is normally entered by district court following meritorious motion, it is clear that court has power to do so on its own initiative).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern Dis-tricl of Arkansas.