Hilton Mincy v. William McConnell, 523 F. App'x 898

Mincy, a Pennsylvania inmate, filed a pro se § 1983 complaint against SCI Albion officials alleging retaliation, RHU confinement, a false misconduct report, and denial of grievances with racially motivated claims.
A Magistrate Judge recommended denying Mincy's summary judgment on retaliation and granting, in part, the defendants' motion; the District Court adopted this recommendation and later reinstated a false misconduct claim after objections.
After a three-day trial in August 2012, the jury found for the defendants on all remaining claims and the District Court entered judgment according to the verdict.
Mincy moved to reopen discovery; the District Court denied the motion as untimely and overbroad, and he was denied access to certain personnel files and internal materials.
Mincy challenged the District Court's denial of his pre-trial summary judgment motion; the court explained that such orders are generally not appealable after final judgment unless an exception applies, which it did not here.
Mincy also failed to provide a trial transcript, triggering dismissal of the appeal regarding claims raised at trial for lack of preservation and record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion denying discovery reopening	Mincy contends reopening discovery was warranted to obtain material items.	Court properly denied due to untimeliness and prior rulings on discoverability.	Denied; no abuse of discretion.
Whether denial of summary judgment on retaliation claims is appealable	Appeal should review denial of summary judgment on First Amendment retaliation.	Pre-trial denial of summary judgment is generally not appealable after trial; no exception applies.	Appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction over the pre-trial denial.
Whether the lack of a trial transcript bars review of trial issues	Transcript is necessary to review claimed admissions and improper questioning.	Appellant must provide transcript; without it, issues cannot be reviewed.	Appeal dismissed for lack of transcript.

Anderson v. Wachovia Mortg. Corp., 621 F.3d 261 (3d Cir. 2010) (discovery order review for abuse of discretion; prejudice standard)
Hopp v. City of Pittsburgh, 194 F.3d 434 (3d Cir. 1999) (pre-trial denial of summary judgment generally not appealable after final judgment)
Ortiz v. Jordan, 131 S. Ct. 884 (U.S. 2011) (full record at trial supersedes record at summary judgment; appeal limitations)
Tuohey v. Chicago Park Dist., 148 F.3d 735 (7th Cir. 1998) (exception for appellate review of dispositive legal questions after judgment)
United Technologies Corp. v. Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp., 189 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (summary judgment standards; appellate review of legal questions)
Akouri v. Fla. Dep’t of Transp., 408 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2005) (exception to immediate post-judgment appeal rules)