Ronald Byers v. Edina Couriers, LLC, No. 12-1214 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case. Dismissal affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 12-1214 ___________ Ronald E. Byers, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, * * * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Edina Couriers, LLC, a Minnesota * limited liability company, and Stanley * [UNPUBLISHED] C. Olsen, Jr., individually and as a * member of Edina Couriers, LLC, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: June 25, 2012 Filed: July 12, 2012 ___________ Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Ronald Byers appeals the district court s1 dismissal of his complaint and denial of his post-judgment motion, in his pro se action alleging that defendants filed fraudulent tax documents with the Internal Revenue Service. 1 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. Following careful de novo review, we agree with the district court that dismissal was appropriate, and we find no basis for reversal. See Carlson v. Wiggins, 675 F.3d 1134, 1138 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); see also See Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) (in alleging fraud, party must state with particularity circumstances constituting fraud); Wellons, Inc. v. T.E. Ibberson Co., 869 F.2d 1166, 1168 (8th Cir. 1989) (describing circumstances in which application of collateral estoppel is appropriate). We also conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Byers s post-judgment motion. See United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review; motions to alter or amend judgment serve limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence). Accordingly, we affirm. 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.
