Kenneth M. Njema v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 16-1435 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Murphy and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Foreclosure. Defendant's summary judgment on plaintiff's claims for breach of contract and various torts affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-1435 ___________________________ Kenneth M. Njema, lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee. ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: January 5, 2017 Filed: January 26, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this action challenging the foreclosure of his home, Kenneth Njema appeals after the district court1 entered summary judgment against him on his claims of breach 1 The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Janie S. of contract, intentional misrepresentation, wrongful foreclosure, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and dismissed his remaining trespass claim without prejudice, for failure to prosecute. Following a careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we agree with the district court’s disposition of Njema’s claims. See Burger v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 822 F.3d 445, 447 (8th Cir. 2016) (summary judgment decisions are reviewed de novo); Lexington Ins. Co. v. Integrity Land Title Co., Inc., 721 F.3d 958, 968 (8th Cir. 2013) (stay-related rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion); Fleming v. Harris, 39 F.3d 905, 908 (8th Cir. 1994) (rulings related to requests by counsel to withdraw are reviewed for abuse of discretion).2 Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ Mayeron, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 We decline to consider points that Njema mentions on appeal, but does not meaningfully argue in his opening brief, see Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 638 (8th Cir. 2007); French v. Board, 993 F.2d 160, 161 (8th Cir. 1993), and arguments that he asserts on appeal, but did not properly present in the summary judgment proceedings, see B.M. ex rel. Miller v. S. Callway R-II Sch. Dist., 732 F.3d 882, 887 (8th Cir. 2012). -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.
