Edgar Futrell v. TIAA Bank, No. 20-2829 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Melloy, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case. The district court did not err in dismissing the suit for failure to state a claim for breach of contract or fraud; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to compel discovery and his attempt to amend his complaint without leave of court. [ April 05, 2021 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-2829 ___________________________ Edgar Vernell Futrell lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. TIAA Bank lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: March 29, 2021 Filed: April 6, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this diversity case, Edgar Futrell appeals after the district court1 dismissed his action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). He argues that the district 1 The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. court erred by failing to rule on his motion to compel discovery and his attempt to amend his complaint prior to dismissing the action. Upon carefully reviewing the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we agree with the district court that Futrell failed to state claims for breach of contract or fraud. See Kelly v. City of Omaha, 813 F.3d 1070, 1075 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to consider Futrell’s motion to compel discovery and his attempt to amend his complaint without leave. See Robinson v. Potter, 453 F.3d 990, 994-95 (8th Cir. 2006) (concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to compel discovery where movant failed to show parties attempted to confer to resolve discovery request, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and local rule); see also MSK EyEs Ltd. v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 546 F.3d 533, 545 (8th Cir. 2008) (concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion by implicitly denying leave to amend complaint). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny as moot Futrell’s motion for appointment of counsel. ______________________________ -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.
