United States v. Derrick K. Patterson

1
The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Iowa.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 04-3569
___________
Richard A. Mathis, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Southern District of Iowa.
John Mathes; William Sperfslage; *
John Emmett; Ronald Welder; John * [UNPUBLISHED]
Spence; Dennis Brumbaugh; Roger *
Lawson; Charles Harper; Ruth *
Stockbridge; Dave Foehring, *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: January 18, 2006
Filed: March 20, 2006
___________
Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Richard A. Mathis appeals the district court's 1 grant of summary judgment in
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having reviewed the record, this court agrees that
Mathis's bare assertions – without the support of exhibits, affidavits or sworn

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
statements – do not establish a genuine issue of material fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c), (e); Janis v. Biesheuvel, 428 F.3d 795, 799 (8 th Cir. 2005); Murphy v. Mo. Dep't
of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 982 (8 th Cir. 2004) (de novo standard of review).
Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint
counsel because it cited a case outlining the requisite factors, which it considered in
determining there would be no fundamental injustice. See Davis v. Scott, 94 F.3d 444,
447 (8 th Cir. 1996). Finally, the district court is under no obligation to give pro se
prisoners notice of summary judgment requirements. See Beck v. Skon, 253 F.3d 330,
333 (8 th Cir. 2001).
Thus, for the reasons explained in the district court's opinion, this court affirms.
See 8 th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --