Jacob A. Black v. Hector Urcelay, in his official capacity

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-3298
___________________________
Jacob A. Black
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Hector Urcelay, in his official capacity
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Western
____________
Submitted: April 25, 2023
Filed: April 28, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
South Dakota resident Jacob Black appeals following the district court’s1 pre-
service dismissal of one claim and adverse grant of summary judgment as to his
1The Honorable Jeffrey L. Viken, United States District Judge for the District
of South Dakota.

-- 1 of 2 --

remaining claim in his civil action. After careful review of the record and the parties’
arguments on appeal, we conclude the district court did not err in dismissing Black’s
constitutional claim, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per
curiam) (reviewing de novo 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) dismissal); or in adversely
granting summary judgment as to his claim under the Rehabilitation Act, see De
Rossitte v. Correct Care Sols., LLC, 22 F.4th 796, 802 (8th Cir. 2022) (de novo
review of grant of summary judgment). We further conclude the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Black’s motion for default judgment, see Norsyn, Inc.
v. Desai, 351 F.3d 825, 828 (8th Cir. 2003) (denial of motion for default judgment
reviewed for abuse of discretion); or in resolving the parties’ discovery issues, see
Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc., 903 F.3d 733, 742 (8th Cir. 2018) (discovery rulings
reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --