William Edwards v. Ed O'Brian, et al, No. 10-1668 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - civil rights. Defendant's summary judgment affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-1668 ___________ William Simpson Edwards, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Ed O Brian; Pradeep Sarswat, MD; * Durga Satyavola; Jones; Julie Pihl, * Nurse, RN; Susan Mangels, RN; * Appeal from the United States Natasha Whalen, RN; Kristen * District Court for the Towlerton, RN; Josaphin Watson, * Southern District of Iowa. RN; Dawn Hecox, RN; John Ault, * Warden; William Spersflage, Deputy * [UNPUBLISHED] Warden; Deb Nichols, Assistant * Security Warden; Rick Larkin, * Living Unit Counselor; Dennis * Brumbaugh, Unit Manager; Dave * DeGrange, ISP Grievance Officer; * Sheryl Lockwood, Central Grievance * Officer; Arthur Neu, IDOC Board * Member; Nancy Roth; Anthony * Aducey; Dave Ryner; State of Iowa; * Department of Corrections, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: August 26, 2010 Filed: September 3, 2010 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. William Simpson Edwards appeals the district court s1 judgment granting defendants summary judgment, and denying Edwards s motions for leave to amend his complaint and for an injunction, in his pro se 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action. Following careful de novo review, see Mason v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 559 F.3d 880, 884 (8th Cir. 2009) (summary judgment standard of review), we find no basis for reversal. We also find that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint, see Popp Telcom v. Am. Sharecom, Inc., 210 F.3d 928, 943 (8th Cir. 2000) (where amendment would likely result in burdens of additional discovery and delay to proceedings, court usually does not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend); or in denying Edwards s request for an injunction, see Hinz v. Neuroscience, Inc., 538 F.3d 979, 986 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review); Bank One, Utah v. Guttau, 190 F.3d 844, 847 (8th Cir. 1999) (factors considered in ruling on request for permanent injunction). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
