Deon Anderson v. Department of the Air Force, No. 16-3889 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bowman and Riley, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Administrative Procedure Act. The district court did not err in finding that the length of plaintiff's disbarment from entering into federal government contract did not violate federal law and was not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3889 ___________________________ Deon Eli Anderson lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Department of the Air Force lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: May 30, 2017 Filed: June 2, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Deon Eli Anderson appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), in which he 1 The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. challenged a term of debarment from entering into federal government contracts. He argued that the length of the term of debarment imposed by the Department of the Air Force violated federal law. We agree with the district court that there is no basis for concluding that the length of the term was not in accordance with the law or was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. See Rohr v. Reliance Bank, 826 F.3d 1046, 1052 (8th Cir. 2016) (reviewing de novo grant of summary judgment); Bettor Racing, Inc. v. Nat’l Indian Gaming Comm’n, 812 F.3d 648, 651 (8th Cir. 2016) (de novo review of district court’s decision on whether agency action violated APA). We deny Anderson’s pending motion to supplement the record. The judgment is affirmed. 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.
