Court Opinion

ID: 9390763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 16:00:37.613185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:36.525594
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-3298
                        ___________________________

                                   Jacob A. Black

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

                                           v.

                      Hector Urcelay, in his official capacity

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
                                      ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
                    for the District of South Dakota - Western
                                   ____________

                             Submitted: April 25, 2023
                               Filed: April 28, 2023
                                   [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      South Dakota resident Jacob Black appeals following the district court’s1 pre-
service dismissal of one claim and adverse grant of summary judgment as to his

      1
       The Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, United States District Judge for the District
of South Dakota.
remaining claim in his civil action. After careful review of the record and the parties’
arguments on appeal, we conclude the district court did not err in dismissing Black’s
constitutional claim, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per
curiam) (reviewing de novo 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal); or in adversely
granting summary judgment as to his claim under the Rehabilitation Act, see De
Rossitte v. Correct Care Sols., LLC, 22 F.4th 796, 802 (8th Cir. 2022) (de novo
review of grant of summary judgment). We further conclude the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Black’s motion for default judgment, see Norsyn, Inc.
v. Desai, 351 F.3d 825, 828 (8th Cir. 2003) (denial of motion for default judgment
reviewed for abuse of discretion); or in resolving the parties’ discovery issues, see
Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc., 903 F.3d 733, 742 (8th Cir. 2018) (discovery rulings
reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                         ______________________________

                                          -2-