Eugene Smith v. East Arkansas Video, No. 07-1981 (8th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil Case - dismissal. District court did not erred in dismissing federal claims, did not abuse its discretion in denying appointment of counsel, and did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-1981 ___________ Eugene Smith, Appellant, v. East Arkansas Video, Inc., Appellee. * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * ___________ Submitted: May 7, 2008 Filed: May 8, 2008 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Eugene Smith appeals the district court s1 adverse grant of judgment on the pleadings on his civil suit brought against defendant in connection with its allegedly unsatisfactory television and internet service to Smith. After careful de novo review, see Stalley ex rel. United States v. Catholic Health Initiative, 509 F.3d 517, 521 (8th Cir. 2007); Wescott v. City of Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990), we conclude that dismissal of the federal claims was proper. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appointment of counsel, see 1 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Phillips v. Jasper County Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review), or preliminary injunctive relief, see Blue Moon Entm t, LLC v. City of Bates City, Mo., 441 F.3d 561, 564 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). Finally, the court also did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Smith s state law claims, which the court properly dismissed without prejudice. See Labickas v. Ark. State Univ., 78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
