Douglas Nixon v. Brent Manning's Qlty Preowned, No. 16-4120 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Arnold and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Civil case. Defendants' summary judgment affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-4120 ___________________________ Douglas A. Nixon; Piaowaka C. Windwolf lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants v. Credit Cars, an Arkansas Corporation lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant Brent Manning’s Quality Preowned, Inc., doing business as Brent Manning’s Credit Cars, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee Brett Tharp lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant Truity Federal Credit Union lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee Kelly Diven, individually and as owner and an officer of Trudity Federal Credit Union, doing business as Trudity Credit Union Affiliated, Springdale, AR, also known as Trudity Credit Union, Bartlesville, OK; Brent Manning lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville ____________ Submitted: July 6, 2017 Filed: July 17, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas residents Douglas Nixon and Piaowaka Windwolf appeal the district court’s1 order granting summary judgment to one defendant and dismissing the claims against other defendants in their pro se action arising out of a used car purchase. Upon careful de novo review, see Kelly v. City of Omaha, 813 F.3d 1070, 1075 (8th Cir. 2016) (dismissal for failure to state a claim reviewed de novo); Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014) (grant of summary judgment reviewed de novo), we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court’s order. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western 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.
