Curtis Neeley, Jr. v. NameMedia, Inc., et al

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: KERMIT E. BYE, STEVEN M. COLLOTON and RAYMOND W. GRUENDER (UNPUBLISHED) [3880341] [11-2558]

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________
No. 11-2558
___________
Curtis James Neeley, Jr., MFA,

*
*
Appellant,
*
*
v.
*
*
NameMedia, Inc.,
*
*
Appellee,
* Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
Network Solutions,
* Western District of Arkansas.
*
Defendant,
* [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Google, Inc.,
*
*
Appellee.
*
*
---------------*
*
NameMedia, Inc.,
*
*
Counter Claimant,
*
*
v.
*
*
Curtis James Neeley, Jr., MFA,
*
*
Counter Defendant.
*
___________

Appellate Case: 11-2558

Page: 1

Date Filed: 02/15/2012 Entry ID: 3880341

Submitted: February 3, 2012
Filed: February 15, 2012
___________
Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Following the adverse resolution of his civil action, Curtis Neeley appeals the
district court’s1 dismissal of certain claims, and the court’s refusal to allow
amendment of his complaint. Upon careful review, we conclude that dismissal of his
17 U.S.C. § 106A claims was proper for the reasons stated by the district court in its
June 7, 2011 order denying Neeley’s motion for reconsideration. We also conclude
that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Neeley further leave to amend
after he filed a second amended complaint, as the proposed amendments he highlights
on appeal would have been futile. See Dennis v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 207 F.3d
523, 525 (8th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________

1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas.
-2-

Appellate Case: 11-2558

Page: 2

Date Filed: 02/15/2012 Entry ID: 3880341