Maurice Roberts v. David Freeman, No. 14-3252 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam -- Before Smith, Bye, and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - civil rights. District court's dismissal of four defendants named in the original complaint and grant of summary judgment to added defendant were proper. No basis for reversal of other rulings relating to discovery, appointment of counsel, injunctive relief, or consolidation.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-3252 ___________________________ Maurice D. Roberts lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Edward Ruppel; Clifton Bowen; David Dormire; Matt Strum; David Freeman lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City ____________ Submitted: January 6, 2016 Filed: January 11, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Missouri inmate Maurice Roberts appeals after the district court1 entered final judgment in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We conclude that, for the reasons 1 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. given by the district court: (1) dismissal was proper as to the four defendants named in Roberts’s original complaint, see Rochling v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 725 F.3d 927, 930 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal); Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (standard of review for 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) dismissal); and (2) summary judgment as to added defendant David Freeman was proper, see Jenkins v. Cty. of Hennepin, Minn., 557 F.3d 628, 631 (8th Cir. 2009) (de novo review of summary judgment grant). We further conclude there is no basis for reversal in the court’s rulings on Roberts’s numerous motions throughout the proceedings regarding discovery, see Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Calvin, 802 F.3d 933, 941 (8th Cir. 2015); the appointment of counsel, see Phillips v. Jasper Cnty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006); injunctive relief, see Devose v. Herrington, 42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam); or consolidation with other cases, see U.S. E.P.A. v. City of Green Forest, Ark., 921 F.2d 1394, 1402 (8th Cir. 1990). 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.
