Michael Butler v. Larry Norris, et al, No. 10-1672 (8th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Prisoner case - prisoner civil rights. District court did not err in dismissing the complaint on the ground the parties had settled the matter.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 10-1672 ___________ Michael Lewis Butler, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas * Department of Correction; Greg * Harmon, Warden, East Arkansas * Regional Unit, ADC; Cheryl Evans, Lt., * East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; * Dondie Franklin, Sgt., East Arkansas * Appeal from the United States Regional Unit, ADC; Harrison * District Court for the Foreman, Sgt., East Arkansas Regional * Eastern District of Arkansas. Unit, ADC; Lamontrell Jones, Officer, * East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; * [UNPUBLISHED] Timothy L. Morrison, Officer, East * Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Felicia * Phillips, East Arkansas Regional Unit, * ADC; Cleaster Hubbard, Officer, East * Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC; Brenda * Anderson, Officer, East Arkansas * Regional Unit, ADC; T. Compton, * Grievance Supervisor, ADC; James * Gibson, Internal Affairs Supervisor, * ADC; Kathy Stewart; Mary Willis, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: September 9, 2010 Filed: September 16, 2010 ___________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate Michael Lewis Butler filed a 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 complaint against several Arkansas Department of Correction employees. In September 2009, Butler s counsel informed the district court1 that the parties had entered into a settlement agreement, and counsel requested the action be dismissed with prejudice. The court then ordered the complaint dismissed on September 14, but it did not enter judgment and retained jurisdiction for thirty days to vacate its order if a party showed that the settlement had not been completed. In October, Butler moved through counsel to vacate the dismissal order and to reopen the case. In November, Butler filed a separate pro se motion to vacate, arguing that the written settlement agreement did not reflect certain verbal assurances made by defendants. In January 2010, the district court denied the pending motions to vacate upon concluding that the parties had settled, and entered judgment dismissing the action with prejudice. Butler appeals. We conclude that the district court did not clearly err in concluding that the parties had settled. See Chaganti & Assocs., P.C. v. Nowotny, 470 F.3d 1215, 1221 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review; basic principles of contract law govern existence and enforcement of alleged settlement); see also Worthy v. McKesson Corp., 756 F.2d 1370, 1373 (8th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (parties to voluntary settlement agreement cannot avoid agreement simply because agreement ultimately proves to be disadvantageous). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Brian S. Miller, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern 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.
