Paul Emerson v. Constance Cleveland, et al, No. 11-2084 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil Case - civil rights. Grant of summary judgment to certain defendants and dismissal of other defendants are summarily affirmed. District court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-2084 ___________ Paul Leslie Emerson, on behalf of G.A.E. and K.D.E., * * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of North Dakota. Constance Louise Cleveland; Marlene * Sorum; Cynthia Kessler; Burch * [UNPUBLISHED] Burdick; Forrest Ammerman; and * Laurie Kramer, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: November 7, 2011 Filed: November 10, 2011 ___________ Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Paul Leslie Emerson, on behalf of his minor children, appeals the district court s1 adverse grants of motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, in this civil rights action. Having carefully reviewed the record and Emerson s arguments for reversal, we find no basis for overturning the district court s well-reasoned decisions 1 The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. to grant summary judgment to certain defendants, see Reed v. City of St. Charles, Mo., 561 F.3d 788, 790-91 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); or to dismiss the claims against other defendants for failure to state a claim, see McAdams v. McCord, 584 F.3d 1111, 1113 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (pro se complaints must be liberally construed, but must allege sufficient facts to support claims advanced). We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court s denial of reconsideration, whether Emerson brought his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), see Brooks v. FergusonFlorissant Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 903, 905 (8th Cir. 1997), or under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), see Perkins v. U.S. West Commc ns, 138 F.3d 336, 340 (8th Cir. 1998); or in the court s denial of leave to rejoin certain defendants dismissed early in the case, see Hammer v. City of Osage Beach, Mo., 318 F.3d 832, 844 (8th Cir. 2003) (discussing circumstances where leave to amend should be denied). The district court 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.
