Erik Tweeton v. Cheri Frandrup, et al, No. 07-1241 (8th Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case

Court Description: Civil case - civil rights. Defendants' summary judgment affirmed without comment.

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 07-1241 ___________ Erik Tweeton, Appellant, v. Cheri L. Frandrup; Kent N. O Grady; Paul J. Gorski; Jane Doe; Jeffrey S. Bilcik; Jerome L. Getz, Appellees. * * * * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. * * [UNPUBLISHED] * * * * ___________ Submitted: July 29, 2008 Filed: August 7, 2008 ___________ Before MELLOY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Erik Tweeton appeals the district court s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action arising from a May 2004 traffic stop. Having conducted a thorough review of the record before the district court, see Larson v. Kempker, 414 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 2005) (de novo review), we conclude that 1 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. summary judgment was proper. Contrary to Tweeton s assertion, he was required to offer evidence countering defendants supporting affidavits and other evidence, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (2006) (revised 2007) (to oppose properly supported summary judgment motion, adverse party may not rely merely on allegations or denials, but must set out specific facts--by affidavits or other evidence--showing genuine issue for trial); Larson, 414 F.3d at 939 (nonmoving party must show existence of facts on record creating genuine issue). Also, because his complaint was unverified, it could not be considered as such evidence. Cf. Ward v. Moore, 414 F.3d 968, 970 (8th Cir. 2005) (where amended complaint was verified under penalty of perjury, it was equivalent of affidavit and could serve as response to defendants summary judgment motion). Accordingly, we affirm. 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.