Marc A. Manzo v. Unknown Control Room Officer

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3626
___________________________
Marc A. Manzo
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Unknown Control Room Officer; Unknown Wellness Check Officers, in their
individual capacity; Unknown Duty Officer; St. Charles County
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: October 1, 2025
Filed: October 6, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM.
Federal inmate Marc Manzo appeals following the district court’s1 adverse
grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from an assault
by his cellmate in the St. Charles County Department of Corrections. Upon de novo
review, we agree that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the county’s
liability, as Manzo did not establish that the county’s inmate-housing policy was
unconstitutional, or that any corrections officers followed an unconstitutional custom
of violating that policy by not placing him in Administrative Segregation. See
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978) (municipality can be
liable when its policy, custom, or practice caused deprivation of plaintiff’s
constitutional rights); Johnson v. Schurman, 145 F.4th 897, 903 (8th Cir. 2025)
(standard of review); Bolderson v. City of Wentzville, 840 F.3d 982, 986 (8th Cir.
2016) (custom must be shown by continuing, widespread, and persistent pattern of
unconstitutional misconduct, and cannot arise from single act). We decline to
consider Manzo’s arguments regarding the county’s alleged failure to train or
supervise its corrections officers, as he did not pursue them below. See Dick v.
Dickinson State Univ., 826 F.3d 1054, 1058 (8th Cir. 2016).
We also find that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Manzo’s
untimely motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, as the policy at issue
and the names of the corrections officers he later deposed were disclosed to him long
before the deadline to amend. See Leftwich ex rel. Leftwich v. Cnty. of Dakota, 9
F.4th 966, 976 (8th Cir. 2021) (no abuse of discretion in denying untimely motion to
amend where allegedly new information supporting late motion was obtained by
belatedly deposing witnesses whose identities were previously disclosed).
1The Honorable Joseph S. Dueker, United States Magistrate Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by
consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --