David Stebbins v. Legal Aid of Arkansas, No. 12-3981 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Civil rights. Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act does not provide for private actions seeking damages, and the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's discrimination and failure-to- modify claims as damages was the sole remedy requested; defendant offered legitimate reasons for declining to represent plaintiff and he failed to show these stated reasons were pretexts for discrimination. [ May 20, 2013
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-3981 ___________________________ David Anthony Stebbins lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Legal Aid of Arkansas lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison ____________ Submitted: May 15, 2013 Filed: May 21, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before BYE, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. David Stebbins brought this suit claiming that Legal Aid of Arkansas (LAA) refused to represent him in various legal matters because of his disability, failed to accommodate his disability with modifications to its policies, and retaliated against him, all in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court1 denied his summary judgment motions, granted LAA s summary judgment motions, and dismissed the case. Stebbins appeals. After careful consideration, see Myers v. Lutsen Mts. Corp., 587 F.3d 891, 892 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo review), we affirm. First, we agree that Stebbins did not meet his summary judgment burden as to the discrimination and failure-to-modify claims; but even if he had, Title III of the ADA does not provide for private actions seeking damages--the sole remedy that he requested. See 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a) (unless enforced by Attorney General, only remedy for violation of Title III of ADA is injunctive relief); Goodwin v. C.N.J., Inc., 436 F.3d 44, 50 (1st Cir. 2006) (§ 12188(a) does not contemplate damages awards in suits brought by private parties; listing cases). Second, even assuming that Stebbins made a prima facie case of retaliation, see Mershon v. St. Louis Univ., 442 F.3d 1069, 1074 (8th Cir. 2006) (absent direct evidence, ADA retaliation claims are analyzed under framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)), we conclude that LAA proffered legitimate reasons for declining to represent him, including that (1) he had not properly applied for LAA s legal services, and (2) a conflict of interest existed between him and LAA based on this ongoing lawsuit. Nothing in the record beyond Stebbins s own assumptions and speculation suggests that those reasons were a pretext for retaliation. See Green v. Franklin Nat l Bank of Minneapolis, 459 F.3d 903, 917 (8th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff s discrimination claim failed when her evidence of pretext was entirely speculative ). Stebbins also challenges various discovery rulings made by the magistrate judge. We may not review them, however, because Stebbins did not file objections to those rulings in the district court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); McDonald v. City of 1 The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting in part the report and recommendations of the Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. -2- St. Paul, 679 F.3d 698, 709 (8th Cir. 2012) (magistrate judge s order denying discovery motion was unreviewable because party failed to file objection in district court). We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Stebbins s pending motion. ______________________________ -3-
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.
