Stuart Auld v. Monica Hansen, et al

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: JAMES B. LOKEN, PASCO M. BOWMAN and STEVEN M. COLLOTON (UNPUBLISHED) [3907333-2] Denying the motion to strike appellees' brief filed by Appellant Mr. Stuart Auld. [3938837] [12-1269]

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________
No. 12-1269
___________
Stuart N. Auld,

*
*
Appellant,
*
* Appeal from the United States
v.
* District Court for the
* Western District of Missouri.
Frankie Friend & Associates,
*
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Defendant,
*
*
Monica Hansen; Frank Tisby; Norm
*
Logan; Ann Doe, also known as
*
Annette Martinez; United States of
*
America; Gonzales Consulting
*
Services, Inc.; Williams Professional
*
Services, LLC; DOI Bureau of Land
*
Management; Unnamed & Unknown, *
*
Appellees.
*
___________
Submitted: July 25, 2012
Filed: August 3, 2012
___________
Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 12-1269

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/03/2012 Entry ID: 3938837

Stuart Auld appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of the civil action he brought
after he was removed from his position with the Bureau of Land Management.
Although he asserted numerous claims under a variety of legal theories, he essentially
challenged the merits of his termination, and we conclude that he could not seek
review of that personnel action in the district court. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 4303, 7511-7513,
7701, 7703 (Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) procedures for contesting removal,
including, for some service categories, appeal to Merit Systems Protection Board and
judicial review in Federal Circuit); United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439, 446-50, 455
(1988) (discussing CSRA provisions for administrative and judicial review of
personnel actions, and exclusion of certain civil servants from such provisions);
Hastings v. Wilson, 516 F.3d 1055, 1058 (8th Cir. 2008) (de novo review).
We also conclude that the district court did not err by denying Auld a default
judgment, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), by dismissing the action before a trial, see
Duncan v. Dep’t of Labor, 313 F.3d 445, 447 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam), or by
denying Auld leave to reassert his claims in light of proposed legislation, see Crest
Constr. II, Inc. v. Doe, 660 F.3d 346, 358 (8th Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Auld’s
motion to strike appellees’ brief.
______________________________

1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
-2-

Appellate Case: 12-1269

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/03/2012 Entry ID: 3938837