Montollie Warren v. Fort Dodge Corr. Facility, et al, No. 09-3462 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - civil rights. District court did not err in granting defendants summary judgment or in denying plaintiff's motion for a default judgment; dismissal of Fort Dodge Facility modified to be with prejudice.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-3462 ___________ Montollie Warren, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Northern * District of Iowa. Fort Dodge Correctional Facility; * Mike Babcock; Karen Anderson; * [UNPUBLISHED] Cornell Smith; John Baldwin; * Tom Conley, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: April 19, 2010 Filed: April 23, 2010 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Montollie Warren appeals the district court s1 order granting summary judgment to Fort Dodge Correctional Facility (FDCF) and several prison officials, and denying Warren s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) motion for a default judgment, in his pro se 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 action. 1 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. Following careful de novo review, see Rouse v. Benson, 193 F.3d 936, 939 (8th Cir. 1999), we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment, and we also find no abuse of discretion in the court s denial of Warren s motion for a default judgment, see Crump v. Versa Prods., Inc., 400 F.3d 1104, 1110 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review for denial of Rule 37 motion for sanctions). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. However, we modify the dismissal of FDCF to be with prejudice. See Monroe v. Ark. State Univ., 495 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir. 2007) (Eleventh Amendment bars claims against state agencies for any kind of relief); Tex. Cmty. Bank, N.A. v. Mo. Dep t of Soc. Servs., Div. of Med. Servs., 232 F.3d 942, 943 (8th Cir. 2000) (where Eleventh Amendment barred suit, state agency was entitled to dismissal with prejudice). ______________________________ -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.
