Where a terminated police officer sued the city and various officials claiming free speech and Whistleblower Act violations, the plaintiff did not file a motion to compel the continuation of a deposition that was cut short and did not show that the shortened deposition was prejudicial, and the plaintiff failed to show an abuse of discretion from the district court’s discovery rulings, and the court also did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for further discovery before granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and the judgment is affirmed because the summary judgment record showed that the plaintiff was not engaging in First Amendment protected speech when he gave a video of a police pursuit to a fellow officer, and a reasonable jury could find that the plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden of proof to show that his report was made in good faith to support an Arkansas whistleblower claim.

Judgment is affirmed.

Marlow v. City of Clarendon (MLW No. 80369/Case No. 22-2533 – 11 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Kelly, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Miller, J. (Lucien R. Gillham, Little Rock, AR argued for appellant) (Matthew Keith Wren, Little Rock, AR argued for appellee).

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiaWh0dHBzOi8vbW9sYXd5ZXJzbWVkaWEuY29t...