Paul Emerson v. Constance Cleveland, et al



Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-2084 ___________ Paul Leslie Emerson, on behalf of G.A.E. and K.D.E., * * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of North Dakota. Constance Louise Cleveland; Marlene * Sorum; Cynthia Kessler; Burch * [UNPUBLISHED] Burdick; Forrest Ammerman; and * Laurie Kramer, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: November 7, 2011 Filed: November 10, 2011 ___________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Paul Leslie Emerson, on behalf of his minor children, appeals the district court’s1 adverse grants of motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, in this civil rights action. Having carefully reviewed the record and Emerson’s arguments for reversal, we find no basis for overturning the district court’s well-reasoned decisions 1 The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. Appellate Case: 11-2084 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2011 Entry ID: 3848121 to grant summary judgment to certain defendants, see Reed v. City of St. Charles, Mo., 561 F.3d 788, 790-91 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); or to dismiss the claims against other defendants for failure to state a claim, see McAdams v. McCord, 584 F.3d 1111, 1113 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (pro se complaints must be liberally construed, but must allege sufficient facts to support claims advanced). We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of reconsideration, whether Emerson brought his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), see Brooks v. FergusonFlorissant Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 903, 905 (8th Cir. 1997), or under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), see Perkins v. U.S. West Commc’ns, 138 F.3d 336, 340 (8th Cir. 1998); or in the court’s denial of leave to “rejoin” certain defendants dismissed early in the case, see Hammer v. City of Osage Beach, Mo., 318 F.3d 832, 844 (8th Cir. 2003) (discussing circumstances where leave to amend should be denied). The district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 11-2084 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/10/2011 Entry ID: 3848121

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?