James Stalnaker, Jr., et al v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc, et al


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Raymond W. Gruender, Pasco M. Bowman and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED); Denying the parties' remaining pending motions as moot. [4130479-2] [4093297-2] [4165557] [13-3199]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-3199 ___________________________ James D. Stalnaker, Jr.; Jorjean D. Stalnaker-Retzloff; Jeff D. Stalnaker, individually and as Estate Administrator of James D. Stalnaker, Sr. lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: June 3, 2014 Filed: June 17, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. James Stalnaker, Jr., and his siblings Jeff Stalnaker and Jorjean StalnakerRetzloff (plaintiffs) brought this action against Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo), after Wells Fargo commenced foreclosure proceedings on the home of plaintiffs’ deceased parents. Wells Fargo moved for Appellate Case: 13-3199 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2014 Entry ID: 4165557 summary judgment, the district court1 granted the motion, and this appeal followed. Plaintiffs argue on appeal that they were denied an adequate opportunity for discovery before the court’s summary judgment ruling, and that the court erred by not granting their request for a postponement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). They also move to supplement the record on appeal. We reject plaintiffs’ claims of inadequate discovery. First, in none of their filings did they specify what facts would be revealed by further discovery and how those facts would support their claims. See Hamilton v. Bangs, McCullen, Butler, Foye & Simmons, L.L.P., 687 F.3d 1045, 1050 (8th Cir. 2012) (no abuse of discretion in denying Rule 56(d) continuance when party fails to show what specific facts might be revealed by further discovery); see also Mid-South Grizzlies v. Nat’l Football League, 720 F.2d 772, 781 (3d Cir. 1983). Further, they did not take advantage of the discovery tools available to them. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); Ray v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 609 F.3d 917, 924 (8th Cir. 2010) (where plaintiff did not submit any motion to compel and made no attempt to supplement summary judgment response, court did not abuse discretion by concluding claims were ripe for summary judgment). For the same reasons, we deny the motion to supplement the record. See Bell v. Pfizer, Inc., 716 F.3d 1087, 1092 (8th Cir. 2013) (denying motion to supplement record on appeal with evidence available long before district court decided case); Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 988 F.2d 61, 63 (8th Cir. 1993). Turning to the merits, upon careful de novo review, see Ray, 609 F.3d at 924 (standard of review for grant of summary judgment), we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment for the reasons explained in the court’s order. Accordingly, we deny the parties’ remaining pending motions as moot, and we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 1 The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- Appellate Case: 13-3199 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2014 Entry ID: 4165557

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?