Michael Woolman v. State of Nebraska, et al

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: KERMIT E. BYE, STEVEN M. COLLOTON and RAYMOND W. GRUENDER (UNPUBLISHED). [3874441-2] Appellant's motion to compel is denied. [3907773] [12-1139]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 12-1139 ___________ Michael B. Woolman, Appellant, v. State of Nebraska; Jon Bruning, Attorney General for Nebraska, Appellees. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: April 30, 2012 Filed: May 3, 2012 ___________ Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. In this action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983, Michael Woolman appeals the district court’s1 preservice dismissal of his complaint without prejudice. Upon careful de novo review, we find no basis for reversal. See Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (standard of review); see also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (while pro se complaint should be liberally 1 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. Appellate Case: 12-1139 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2012 Entry ID: 3907773 construed, it still must allege facts to support claims advanced; court will not supply facts or construct legal theory for plaintiff). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Woolman’s pending motion to compel discovery. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 12-1139 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2012 Entry ID: 3907773

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?