Robert Avery v. Keith Ferguson, et al, No. 10-3196 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - civil rights. Defendants' summary judgment affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-3196 ___________ Robert William Avery, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Keith Ferguson, in his individual and * official capacity; Major Drake, in his * individual and official capacity; Chris * Sparks, in his individual and official * capacity, * * Appellees, * * Benton County SWAT Team, * * Defendant, * * Robert Holly, in his individual and * official capacity; Sgt. Tomlin, in his * individual and official capacity; * Deputy Carlton, in his individual and * official capacity; Sgt. Jared Crabtree, * in his individual and official capacity; * Nathan Atchison, in his individual and * official capacity; Travis Newell, in his * individual and official capacity, * * Appellees, * Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. [UNPUBLISHED] Harold Gage, in his individual and * official capacity; Rick Holland, in his * individual and official capacity; Josh * Chapman, in his individual and official * capacity; Richard Conner, in his * individual and official capacity; Charles * Robbins, in his individual and official * capacity; Eric Warzecha, in his * individual and official capacity; Tim * Srader, in his individual and official * capacity, * * Defendants, * * Wade Porter, in his individual and * official capacity; Captain Jones, in * his individual and official capacity, * * Appellees, * * Captain Petray, in his individual and * official capacity, * * Defendant. * ___________ Submitted: August 1, 2011 Filed: August 4, 2011 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. -2- Arkansas inmate Robert Avery appeals the district court s1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action following an evidentiary hearing. Avery, formerly a pretrial detainee at the Benton County Detention Center (BCDC), filed an action against Benton County officials and SWAT team members, and BCDC officers. He claimed as relevant that on January 16, 2007, the SWAT team used excessive force in arresting and interrogating him, and officials had not properly trained and supervised the team; and that on January 18, BCDC officers used excessive force against him, and Captain Hunter Petray had not properly trained and supervised the officers. Because Avery made a timely jury demand only as to his claim against Petray, we hold that the court did not err in denying him a jury trial on the claims against all other defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 38 (jury demand must be made within 14 days after last pleading directed to issue is served); Shelton v. Consumer Prods. Safety Comm n, 277 F.3d 998, 1011 (8th Cir. 2002) (where only thing new about amended complaint was addition of party, only that party had right to jury arising out of amended complaint; other parties had already waived right to jury by not making demand after earlier complaint). Upon careful review, we further hold that the court did not err in granting summary judgment to Petray, see Mason v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 559 F.3d 880, 884-85 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo standard of review), or in dismissing Avery s remaining claims after an evidentiary hearing, see Hartsfield v. Colburn, 491 F.3d 394, 395-96 (8th Cir. 2007) (where there is no jury demand, evidentiary hearing before magistrate judge is the equivalent of a bench trial ; appellate court reviews district court s factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo). 1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -3- Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -4-
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.
