Court Opinion

ID: 9939713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-12 16:02:26.629978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:52.062068
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                          For the Eighth Circuit
                      ___________________________

                              No. 22-3095
                      ___________________________

                              Sean Edward Krier

                     lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

                                        v.

 Derek Gosnell, Captain; Weston Weathington, Captain; Bruce Billings; Shane
                      Jobe; Manny Sandoval; Steve Dill

                    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
                                     ____________

                  Appeal from United States District Court
                  for the Southern District of Iowa - Central
                                ____________

                         Submitted: February 7, 2024
                          Filed: February 12, 2024
                               [Unpublished]
                               ____________

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

PER CURIAM.
       Iowa inmate Sean Krier appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary
judgment in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action raising Eighth Amendment excessive
force claims based on two incidents. Upon careful de novo review, we affirm. See
Gareis v. 3M Co., 9 F.4th 812, 818 (8th Cir. 2021) (standard of review).

       We agree with the district court that, based on the video evidence Krier
submitted, no reasonable jury could find that the defendant correctional officers used
force maliciously and sadistically to cause harm in either incident. See Wilkins v.
Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 37 (2010) (per curiam) (core judicial inquiry in Eighth
Amendment excessive-force claim is whether force was used in good-faith effort to
restore or maintain discipline, or maliciously or sadistically to cause harm); Scott v.
Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380-81 (2007) (where non-movant’s version of events was
blatantly contradicted by video evidence such that no reasonable jury could believe
it, court should not adopt that version of facts in ruling on summary judgment motion,
but should view facts in light depicted by video).

       As to Krier’s other arguments, we lack jurisdiction to review the magistrate
judge’s order denying Krier’s motion for discovery and a continuance, as Krier did
not appeal the order to the district court. See McDonald v. City of Saint Paul, 679
F.3d 698, 709 (8th Cir. 2012) (declining to review appellant’s challenge to
magistrate’s order denying non-dispositive motion, because he did not object to such
order before district court). We decline to consider the arguments regarding law
library access Krier newly raises in his reply brief. See Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp.,
481 F.3d 630, 634 (8th Cir. 2007) (points not meaningfully argued in opening brief
are waived).

      The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                     ______________________________

      1
        The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Iowa.

                                         -2-