James Germalic v. John Gale, No. 09-3752 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case. Dismissal affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-3752 ___________ James Germalic, Independent Candidate for President, Pro Se, Appellant, v. John Gale, Secretary of State Lincoln, Nebraska, Appellee. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * * ___________ Submitted: July 20, 2010 Filed: July 23, 2010 ___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. James Germalic appeals from the order of the District Court1 dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim. Germalic also has a pending motion to add thirty-nine pages to his reply brief. Upon de novo review, we conclude that the District Court did not err in dismissing Germalic s complaint for failure to state a claim. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (noting that pro se 1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. complaints should be liberally construed but nevertheless "must allege sufficient facts to support the claims advanced"); Ellis v. Norris, 179 F.3d 1078, 1079 (8th Cir. 1999) (affirming dismissal of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint where plaintiff "failed to allege facts supporting any individual defendant s personal involvement or responsibility for the violations"); Reed v. Woodruff County, Ark., 7 F.3d 808, 810 (8th Cir. 1993) (explaining that to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant s actions "amounted to a violation of a right . . . protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States"); see also Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., 517 F.3d 544, 549 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 222 (2008). Accordingly, we affirm the District Court. In addition, we deny Germalic s pending motion. ______________________________ -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.
