Sharon Johnson v. City of Pine Bluff, No. 11-2625 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - civil rights. Defendants' summary judgment affirmed without comment; district court did not err in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law complaints.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 11-2625 ___________ Sharon D. Johnson, Appellant, v. City of Pine Bluff; Carl Redus, Appellees. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * ___________ Submitted: February 3, 2012 Filed: February 8, 2012 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Sharon Johnson appeals the district court s1 adverse grant of summary judgment on her Equal Pay Act (EPA) claim, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 equal protection claim, and state-law claims. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude summary judgment was properly granted on Johnson s EPA and equal protection claims, for the reasons stated by the district court. See Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by implicitly declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 1 The Honorable Brian S. Miller, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Johnson s state-law claims, but we note that those claims should have been dismissed without prejudice. See Franklin v. Zain, 152 F.3d 783, 786 (8th Cir. 1998) (construing district court s action as declining supplemental jurisdiction where court closed and dismissed case, but modifying dismissal of state-law claims to be without prejudice). In addition, to the extent that Johnson s complaint may be construed as asserting violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, and her due process rights, we conclude that such claims have been waived. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (appellant waives claim that is not meaningfully raised in opening brief). Accordingly, we modify the dismissal of Johnson s state-law claims to be without prejudice, and we affirm the judgment of the district court, as modified. 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.
