Benjamin Mario Soto v. Minnesota Bureau of Criminal, No. 14-2175 (8th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-2175 ___________________________ Benjamin Mario Soto lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant John Does 1-5, each individually and in their official capacities as officials and employees of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: October 27, 2014 Filed: November 3, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Benjamin Soto appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not err in dismissing Soto’s claims. See Palmer v. Ill. Farmers Ins. Co., 666 F.3d 1081, 1083 (8th Cir. 2012) (de novo review of grant of motion to dismiss); Mulvenon v. Greenwood, 643 F.3d 653, 657 (8th Cir. 2011) (person must have legitimate claim of entitlement to his employment to have property interest in it). In addition, to the extent Soto attempts to assert on appeal a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, we decline to consider it. See Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 849 (2014) (appellate court does not address legal or factual claims presented for first time on appeal). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Soto’s pending motions. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Steven E. Rau, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -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.