Frederick Smith v. Rick McKelvey, et al


PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Steven M. Colloton, Pasco M. Bowman and Raymond W. Gruender (UNPUBLISHED) [4433897] [16-1726]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1726 ___________________________ Frederick Smith, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Rick G. McKelvey, Officer; Arkansas State Police Department, lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro ____________ Submitted: August 1, 2016 Filed: August 4, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Frederick Smith appeals district court’s1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) dismissal, without prejudice, of his pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Smith 1 The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Appellate Case: 16-1726 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2016 Entry ID: 4433897 also sought to bring claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242; and under Arkansas law. Upon careful de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam), we conclude that all of Smith’s federal claims were subject to dismissal, see Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 553, 557-58 (2000); Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); Jones v. Frost, 770 F.3d 1183, 1185 (8th Cir. 2014), and that the district court was warranted in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Smith’s state-law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 16-1726 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/04/2016 Entry ID: 4433897

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?