Court Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Colloton, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. The district court did not err in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment in this Section 1983 action as no reasonable jury, viewing the available video evidence, could find the defendant correctional officers used force maliciously and sadistically to cause harm to plaintiff; the court lacks jurisdiction to review the magistrate judge's order denying plaintiff's motion for discovery and a continuance as plaintiff failed to appeal that order to the district court; the court would not consider arguments raised for the first time in plaintiff's reply brief.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
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Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Central ____________ Submitted: February 7, 2024 Filed: February 12, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.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-
]]>
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.
