Randy Teinert v. Rashid Abdallah ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 11-2086
    ___________
    Randy Teinert,                           *
    *
    Appellant,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court for the
    * District of Minnesota.
    Rashid Abdallah, also known as           *
    Rick; Mark Davis,                        *     [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellees.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 27, 2011
    Filed: November 1, 2011
    ___________
    Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Randy Teinert appeals the district court’s1 dismissal with prejudice of certain
    claims in his civil action. After careful review, we conclude the district court did not
    abuse its discretion by denying Teinert’s motion to amend on futility grounds, see
    Sprint Fidelis Leads Prods. Liab. Litig. v. Medtronic, Inc. (In re Medtronic, Inc.), 
    623 F.3d 1200
    , 1208 (8th Cir. 2010) (review standard; de novo review for legal
    conclusions supporting futility of amendment); Mayer v. Countrywide Home Loans,
    1
    The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the
    District of Minnesota.
    
    647 F.3d 789
    , 792-93 (8th Cir. 2011) (fraud claim must allege time, place, and
    content of misrepresentation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)); or by dismissing his fraud
    claims with prejudice, see Springdale Educ. Ass’n v. Springdale Sch. Dist., 
    133 F.3d 649
    , 653 (8th Cir. 1998) (review standard); Pet Quarters, Inc. v. Depository Trust &
    Clearing Corp., 
    559 F.3d 772
    , 782 (8th Cir. 2009) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal
    with prejudice is not abuse of discretion when amendment would be futile). We also
    conclude that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of Teinert’s
    postjudgment motion for disclosure of chambers papers, because he submitted his
    notice of appeal (NOA) prior to the motion’s denial and did not timely file a new or
    amended NOA specifying the denial order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii) (party
    must timely file new or amended NOA to appeal order that disposes of postjudgment
    motion).
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-2086

Judges: Melloy, Bowman, Shepherd

Filed Date: 11/1/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024