Scotty Iverson Floyd v. Marty Anderson, No. 05-4280 (8th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Civil rights. Defendants' summary judgment on Bivens claims affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 05-4280 ___________ Scotty Iverson Floyd, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Marty C. Anderson, Warden; T. C. * Peterson, Warden; Dr. George Santini; * [UNPUBLISHED] P.A. C. Reudy; P.A. Edmonds; P.A. Liz * Evans; Asst. H.S.A. Val Encarnanze; * P.A. Bea Glavinovich; H.S.A. * Chapman; C.R.N.P. Muth; H.S.A. * Furtenz; H.S.A. Z. Gutierrez; * Does 1-20, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: February 1, 2007 Filed: February 22, 2007 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Scotty Iverson Floyd appeals the district court s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that Floyd failed to create any trialworthy issues on his Eighth Amendment claims. See Alberson v. Norris, 458 F.3d 762, 765 (8th Cir. 2006) (summary judgment standard of review; disagreement with treatment decisions does not rise to level of Eighth Amendment violation, and to show deliberate indifference, plaintiff must show more than even gross negligence); Moody v. St. Charles County, 23 F.3d 1410, 1412 (8th Cir. 1994) (party seeking to defeat summary judgment motion must substantiate allegations with sufficient probative evidence to permit finding in his favor based on more than speculation or conjecture). We reject Floyd s arguments about discovery, because he did not properly seek postponement of the summary judgment ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). See Stanback v. Best Diversified Prods., Inc., 180 F.3d 903, 911 (8th Cir. 1999) (discussing requirements under Rule 56(f)). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Raymond L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -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.
