SHAW v. PONTO RN (2019)

[Unpublished]

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, the district court ¹ adopted in part a magistrate judge’s ² recommendation to grant partial summary judgment on some of Shaw’s claims, and following a jury trial, entered judgment on the jury verdict against him on his remaining claims. On appeal, Shaw challenges only the partial grant of summary judgment, arguing that the district court erred in determining that some of his claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that the court failed to recognize that his verified complaint was the equivalent of an affidavit for summary judgment purposes.

We conclude that the district court did not err in finding that some of Shaw’s claims were time-barred. See Bell v. Fowler, 99 F.3d 262, 265-66 (8th Cir. 1996) (South Dakota’s 3-year statute of limitations applies to § 1983 actions). Further, after de novo review of the summary judgment record, including Shaw’s verified complaint, we conclude that the grant of partial summary judgment was warranted. See Roberson v. Hayti Police Dep’t, 241 F.3d 992, 994-95 (8th Cir. 2001) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo; record is reviewed in light most favorable to nonmoving party; verified complaint is equivalent of affidavit for summary judgment purposes). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.

2.   The Honorable Veronica L. Duffy, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South Dakota.

PER CURIAM.