Calvin Hollowell v. Bryan Hosto, et al

Filing 920100812

Opinion

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-1911 ___________ Calvin C. Hollowell, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Bryan E. Hosto, Attorney, Hosto, * Buchan, Prater, and Lawrence P.L.L.C.; * Charles J. Buchan, Attorney; Mark * Sexton, Attorney; Paul Andrew * Prater, Attorney; Beth Collier, Deputy * [UNPUBLISHED] Clerk Sherwood District Court; Hosto * Buchan Prater & Lawrence, PLLC, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: August 9, 2010 Filed: August 12, 2010 ___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Calvin Hollowell appeals an order of the District Court1 dismissing his civil action related to state garnishment proceedings. Upon careful de novo review, see Carter v. Arkansas, 392 F.3d 965, 968 (8th Cir. 2004), we conclude that based on the allegations in Hollowell's complaint, he can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief on the claims he asserted under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985, and 1986, as well as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 16921692p,2 see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (holding that a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face; plaintiff's obligation to provide grounds of entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions). Accordingly, we modify the District Court's order to reflect that all of the claims asserted in the complaint are dismissed with prejudice, and we affirm the order as modified. ______________________________ The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. We do not construe the complaint as asserting an independent claim under 42 U.S.C. 407. -22 1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?