Court Opinion

ID: 9894046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-31 16:00:54.834389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:27.978984
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eighth Circuit
                     ___________________________

                             No. 22-2921
                     ___________________________

                                    Rico Paul

                     lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

                                        v.

          Travis Pacheco, Correctional Officer, Individual Capacity

                    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee

                       Troy Steele; Peggy Somerville

                          lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants
                                  ____________

                 Appeal from United States District Court
               for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
                               ____________

                        Submitted: October 24, 2023
                          Filed: October 31, 2023
                               [Unpublished]
                              ____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
                          ____________

PER CURIAM.
       Missouri inmate Rico Paul appeals the judgment entered by the district court1
following an adverse jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon careful
review, we conclude that Paul waived his challenge to document production during
discovery, see Bradshaw v. FFE Transp. Servs., Inc., 715 F.3d 1104, 1108 (8th Cir.
2013) (holding that discovery objections not made at the time set in the discovery
scheduling order were waived), and further conclude the district court did not abuse
its discretion in granting the defendant’s motion in limine, see Lawrey v. Good
Samaritan Hosp., 751 F.3d 947, 952 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review). We also
conclude that Paul failed to preserve his claim regarding late-produced evidence, cf.
Wichmann v. United Disposal, Inc., 553 F.2d 1104, 1106 (8th Cir. 1977) (holding
that an error was not preserved where the party failed to move for a mistrial or to
present the issue in a motion for new trial), as well as his claim that the district court
erred in failing to provide an adverse inference jury instruction, as he withdrew his
request for the instruction and did not object to the district court’s failure to give it,
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d) (stating that a party may assign as error a failure to give an
instruction if that party properly requested it and also properly objected).

      Accordingly, we affirm the judgment, see 8th Cir. R. 47B; and deny Paul’s
pending motions.
                     ______________________________

      1
       The Honorable Stephen R. Clark, Chief Judge, United States District Court
Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

                                           -2-