James Stalnaker, Jr. v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc, No. 13-3199 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case. Claim that plaintiffs were not allowed an adequate opportunity for discovery before the district court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment rejected; summary judgment affirmed without comment. [ June 16, 2014
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-3199 ___________________________ James D. Stalnaker, Jr.; Jorjean D. Stalnaker-Retzloff; Jeff D. Stalnaker, individually and as Estate Administrator of James D. Stalnaker, Sr. lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: June 3, 2014 Filed: June 17, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. James Stalnaker, Jr., and his siblings Jeff Stalnaker and Jorjean StalnakerRetzloff (plaintiffs) brought this action against Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo), after Wells Fargo commenced foreclosure proceedings on the home of plaintiffs deceased parents. Wells Fargo moved for summary judgment, the district court1 granted the motion, and this appeal followed. Plaintiffs argue on appeal that they were denied an adequate opportunity for discovery before the court s summary judgment ruling, and that the court erred by not granting their request for a postponement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). They also move to supplement the record on appeal. We reject plaintiffs claims of inadequate discovery. First, in none of their filings did they specify what facts would be revealed by further discovery and how those facts would support their claims. See Hamilton v. Bangs, McCullen, Butler, Foye & Simmons, L.L.P., 687 F.3d 1045, 1050 (8th Cir. 2012) (no abuse of discretion in denying Rule 56(d) continuance when party fails to show what specific facts might be revealed by further discovery); see also Mid-South Grizzlies v. Nat l Football League, 720 F.2d 772, 781 (3d Cir. 1983). Further, they did not take advantage of the discovery tools available to them. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); Ray v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 609 F.3d 917, 924 (8th Cir. 2010) (where plaintiff did not submit any motion to compel and made no attempt to supplement summary judgment response, court did not abuse discretion by concluding claims were ripe for summary judgment). For the same reasons, we deny the motion to supplement the record. See Bell v. Pfizer, Inc., 716 F.3d 1087, 1092 (8th Cir. 2013) (denying motion to supplement record on appeal with evidence available long before district court decided case); Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc., 988 F.2d 61, 63 (8th Cir. 1993). Turning to the merits, upon careful de novo review, see Ray, 609 F.3d at 924 (standard of review for grant of summary judgment), we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment for the reasons explained in the court s order. Accordingly, we deny the parties remaining pending motions as moot, and we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 1 The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -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.
