eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 1997-12

Foster/Ferguson v. Schriro ( 1997 )


Menu:
 
  •                          United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 97-2205
___________
William Wentworth Foster;            *
Jeffrey R. Ferguson,                 *
*
Appellants,              * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
v.                             * Eastern District of Missouri.
*     [UNPUBLISHED]
Dora Schriro; Michael Bowersox;      *
Gloria Gourley,                      *
*
Appellees.               *
___________
Submitted: December 1, 1997
Filed: December 5, 1997
___________
Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
William Foster and Jeffrey Ferguson (plaintiffs), Missouri inmates, appeal the
adverse grant of summary judgment and dismissal of their claims by the district court1
in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the implementation of a
1
The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
new inmate personal property policy at Potosi Correctional Center, claiming that it was
adopted in retaliation for inmate-filed lawsuits.
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
plaintiffs’ motion to hold defendants’ dispositive motion in abeyance for additional time
to conduct discovery, see Conner v. Reckitt & Colman, Inc.,
    84 F.3d 1100
    , 1103 (8th
Cir. 1996) (standard of review), that summary judgment was appropriate based on
defendants& unrebutted evidence, see Goff v. Burton,
    7 F.3d 734
    , 737-38 (8th Cir.
1993) (to prevail on retaliation claim, prisoner had burden of showing transfer would
not have occurred but for inmate’s litigation activities), cert. denied,
    512 U.S. 1209 
    (1994), and that dismissal of plaintiffs& other claims was proper. We also conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs class certification, see
Prince v. Endell,
    78 F.3d 397
    , 399 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam), or in denying
appointment of counsel, see Abdullah v. Gunter,
    949 F.2d 1032
    , 1035 (8th Cir. 1991),
cert. denied,
    504 U.S. 930 
    (1992).
The judgment is affirmed.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
-2-