Michael Bauermeister v. Kor Xiong
Filing
PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: DIANA E. MURPHY, MORRIS S. ARNOLD and DUANE BENTON (UNPUBLISHED) [3831181] [11-2485]
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 11-2485
___________
Michael Bauermeister,
Appellant,
v.
Kor Xiong, President of Hmong
Satellite TV, Inc.,
Appellee.
*
*
*
* Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
* District of Nebraska.
*
*
[UNPUBLISHED]
*
*
___________
Submitted: September 16, 2011
Filed: September 21, 2011
___________
Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Michael Bauermeister appeals the district court’s1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
dismissal of his complaint, in which he requested that criminal charges be brought
against the defendant. Upon careful review, we conclude that the dismissal was
proper. See United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979) (“[w]hether to
prosecute and what charges to file or bring before a grand jury are decisions that
generally rest in the prosecutor’s discretion”); cf. Koll v. Wayzata State Bank,
1
The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the
District of Nebraska.
Appellate Case: 11-2485
Page: 1
Date Filed: 09/21/2011 Entry ID: 3831181
397 F.2d 124, 127 (8th Cir. 1968) (affirming dismissal where plaintiff failed to plead
intelligible grounds for federal jurisdiction; basis for federal jurisdiction must
affirmatively appear clearly and distinctly). We further conclude that, to the extent
Mr. Bauermeister has attempted to advance a new claim on appeal, that claim is not
properly before this court. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F. 3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2001)
(stating general rule that claims not presented in district court may not be advanced
for first time on appeal).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-
Appellate Case: 11-2485
Page: 2
Date Filed: 09/21/2011 Entry ID: 3831181
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?