eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 2016-01

Maurice Roberts v. David Freeman ( 2016 )


Menu:
 
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 14-3252
___________________________
Maurice D. Roberts
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Edward Ruppel; Clifton Bowen; David Dormire; Matt Strum; David Freeman
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
____________
Submitted: January 6, 2016
Filed: January 11, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Missouri inmate Maurice Roberts appeals after the district court1 entered final
judgment in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We conclude that, for the reasons
1
The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
given by the district court: (1) dismissal was proper as to the four defendants named
in Roberts’s original complaint, see Rochling v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs,
    725 F.3d 927
    , 930 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal);
Moore v. Sims,
    200 F.3d 1170
    , 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (standard of review
for 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) dismissal); and (2) summary judgment as to added defendant
David Freeman was proper, see Jenkins v. Cty. of Hennepin, Minn.,
    557 F.3d 628
    ,
631 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of summary judgment grant). We further
conclude there is no basis for reversal in the court’s rulings on Roberts’s numerous
motions throughout the proceedings regarding discovery, see Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins.
Co. v. Calvin,
    802 F.3d 933
    , 941 (8th Cir. 2015); the appointment of counsel, see
Phillips v. Jasper Cnty. Jail,
    437 F.3d 791
    , 794 (8th Cir. 2006); injunctive relief, see
Devose v. Herrington,
    42 F.3d 470
    , 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam); or consolidation
with other cases, see U.S. E.P.A. v. City of Green Forest, Ark.,
    921 F.2d 1394
    , 1402
(8th Cir. 1990).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-