Rico Paul v. Travis Pacheco, No. 22-2921 (8th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Colloton, and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. Plaintiff's evidentiary challenges rejected, and defendants' judgment affirmed.
Download PDF
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for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: October 24, 2023 Filed: October 31, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.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-
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.
