Frederick Pitchford v. Denzil Marshall, Jr., et al
Filing
PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: MORRIS S. ARNOLD, BOBBY E. SHEPHERD and KERMIT E. BYE (UNPUBLISHED) [3794269] [11-1166]
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-1166
___________
Frederick L. Pitchford,
*
*
Appellant,
*
* Appeal from the United States
v.
* District Court for the
* Eastern District of Arkansas.
Denzil Price Marshall, Jr., District
*
Judge, Personal Capacity; H. David
*
[UNPUBLISHED]
Young, Magistrate Judge, Personal
*
Capacity; Jane A. Kim, Attorney,
*
Officer of the Court,
*
*
Appellees.
*
___________
Submitted: May 24, 2011
Filed: June 6, 2011
___________
Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Frederick Pitchford appeals the district court’s1 preservice dismissal of his civil
rights action. We conclude that dismissal was proper. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S.
9, 11-12 (1991) (per curiam) (judicial immunity); Kurtz v. City of Shrewsbury,
1
The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
Appellate Case: 11-1166
Page: 1
Date Filed: 06/06/2011 Entry ID: 3794269
245 F.3d 753, 758 (8th Cir. 2001) (requirements for conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1985); Jensen v. Henderson, 315 F.3d 854, 863 (8th Cir. 2002) (42 U.S.C. § 1986
claim depends on existence of valid § 1985 claim). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th
Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-
Appellate Case: 11-1166
Page: 2
Date Filed: 06/06/2011 Entry ID: 3794269
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?