Richard Purcell v. Union Pacific Railroad, No. 11-1263 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case. Defendant's summary judgment affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-1263 ___________ Richard L. Purcell, Appellant, v. Union Pacific Railroad, Appellee. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: July 5, 2011 Filed: July 8, 2011 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Richard Purcell appeals following the adverse grant of summary judgment by the District Court1 in his civil action claiming retaliation for filing safety complaints. After careful de novo review, see Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir. 2006), we agree with the District Court that under the statute at issue as it existed during the events underlying this complaint, 49 U.S.C. § 20109(a) (2006), Purcell was not entitled to relief. We decline his invitation to retroactively apply a subsequent 1 The Honorable Thomas J. Shields, United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). amendment to the statute, see Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 266 68, 280 (1994), and we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in staying discovery, see Steinbuch v. Cutler, 518 F.3d 580, 590 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 223 (2008). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
