Tony Nenninger v. United States Forest Service, et al, No. 08-3106 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case. Dismissal affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-3106 ___________ Tony Nenninger, * * Appellant, * * v. * * United States Forest Service; * Mark Rey, in official capacity * as Undersecretary for USDA; Gayle * Kimball, in official capacity as Chief * of Forest Service; Don Palmer, in * official capacity as FS Special Use * Program Manager; John Twiss, * individually and in official capacity as * FS Chief of law enforcement; Gene * Smithson, in official capacity as FS * Incident Commander during Fourth of * July rainbow gatherings; Ellen * Hornstein, individually and in official * capacity as FS legal counsel; John/Jane * Does, individually and in official * capacities for FS and/or other * government agencies; Officer * Kragstadt, individually and in official * capacity in FS law enforcement; Officer * Lampshire, individually and in official * capacity in FS law enforcement, * * Appellees. * Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. [UNPUBLISHED] ___________ Submitted: November 23, 2009 Filed: November 27, 2009 ___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Tony Nenninger appeals from the order of the District Court1 granting defendants motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment in his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the court's subsequent order denying his motion to amend the judgment. Having carefully reviewed the record and Nenninger s arguments, we conclude that the District Court did not err in granting defendants motion and did not abuse its discretion in denying Nenninger s motion to amend. See Franklin v. Local 2 of the Sheet Metal Workers Int l Ass n, 565 F.3d 508, 520 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting that order granting summary judgment is reviewed de novo on appeal); Taxi Connection v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Corp., 513 F.3d 823, 825 (8th Cir. 2008) (noting that order granting motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo on appeal); United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that order denying motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is reviewed for clear abuse of discretion on appeal). Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny Nenninger s pending motion to schedule oral argument. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court 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.
