S'cie Ward v. Kramer School Art Loft, LP, et al

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Lavenski R. Smith, Morris S. Arnold and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED) [4425865] [15-3113]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-3113
___________________________
S’cie Ward
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Kramer School Art Loft Limited Partnership, An Arkansas Limited Partnership; J.
Scott Grummer, individually and as Executive Director of the Downtown Little
Rock Community Development Corporation; Downtown Little Rock Community
Development Corporation; Downtown Little Rock Redevelopment Corporation;
John Shiver, individually and as Executive Director of First Capital Residential,
LLC; First Capital Residential, LLC; Arkansas Development Finance Authority;
All the Right Moves, Inc.; City of Little Rock, Arkansas; Paul Esterer; Todd Alan
Rice; Rose Mary Epperson
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock
____________
Submitted: July 7, 2016
Filed: July 14, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 15-3113

Page: 1

Date Filed: 07/14/2016 Entry ID: 4425865

S’cie Ward appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary
judgment in her action raising claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1982 and other federal
statutes, as well as under state law. As to the district court’s determination that some
claims against certain parties were barred because Ms. Ward had not raised them as
compulsory counterclaims in a prior unlawful-detainer action against her in state
court, we agree with the district court’s well-reasoned analysis of those claims.2 See
Brown v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., 820 F.3d 338, 344 (8th Cir. 2016) (reviewing de
novo grant of summary judgment); see also Teddler v. Am. Railcar Indus., Inc., 739
F.3d 1104, 1111 (8th Cir. 2014) (remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel in civil
case is suit against attorney for malpractice). The judgment of the district court is
affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________

1

The Honorable James M. Moody, Jr., United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.
2

The grant of summary judgment on these claims is the only apparent challenge
Ms. Ward raises on appeal, and thus her other claims are waived. See Hess v. Ables,
714 F.3d 1048, 1051 n.2 (8th Cir. 2013) (claim is waived where there is no briefing
on why dismissal was improper).
-2-

Appellate Case: 15-3113

Page: 2

Date Filed: 07/14/2016 Entry ID: 4425865