Floyd L. Semons v. ROBERT SADOWSKI and CALVIN SMITH

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted November 26, 2014*
Decided December 8, 2014
Before
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
No. 14-1728
FLOYD L. SEMONS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ROBERT SADOWSKI and
CALVIN SMITH,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
No. 12-CV-65
Nancy Joseph,
Magistrate Judge.
O R D E R
Plaintiff-appellant Floyd Semons, a Wisconsin inmate, appeals a jury verdict in
favor of two jail officials in his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting excessive force. We
affirm.
After Semons pulled out several sprinkler heads in the Milwaukee County Jail,
Officers Robert Sadowski and Calvin Smith restrained him—excessively so, in his view.
* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is
unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See F ED. R. APP . P.
34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 14-1728 Page 2
During the trial, testimony was given by Semons, Sadowski, Smith, and a psychiatric
nurse employed by the jail. The jury concluded that the force used against Semons was
not unreasonable under the circumstances.
On appeal Semons argues that the district court erred in allowing the nurse to
testify because he did not have adequate notice before trial that she would be a witness.
But the nurse’s name actually appeared in two documents that the officers submitted
before trial. Some confusion may have arisen because the nurse’s maiden name was used
in the officers’ pretrial report, in which the officers listed “Psychiatric Nurse Chris
Lubus, Milwaukee County Jail” as a potential witness. But the officers clarified any
confusion two weeks later when they identified her in their amended witness list as
“Psychiatric Nurse Chris Becker (nee Lubus), Milwaukee County Jail.”
Semons also contends that he should be granted a new trial because his counsel
was ineffective in failing, among other things, to object to the nurse being allowed to
testify. But there is no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in a civil case.
See Stanciel v. Gramley, 267 F.3d 575, 581 (7th Cir. 2001); Bell v. Eastman Kodak Co., 214 F.3d
798, 802 (7th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --