Frederick Smith v. Democratic Party Arkansas, No. 15-3535 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Bowman and Gruender, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Civil rights. Defendants' judgment affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-3535 ___________________________ Frederick Smith lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Democratic Party Arkansas; Will Bond, Individual Capacity Chairman Democratic Party Arkansas; Candace Martin, Individual Capacity Spokeswoman DPA; Mike Beebe, Head of Democratic Party Arkansas Individual Capacity; Mary McGowan, Judge of Pulaski County Circuit Court Individual Capacity; Mark Martin, Chairman of State Election Commission/Secretary of State Individual Capacity lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro ____________ Submitted: August 4, 2016 Filed: August 17, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Frederick Smith appeals the adverse judgment entered by the district court1 in his action asserting claims under, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that the district court appropriately disposed of Smith’s claims. See Anderson-Tully Co. v. McDaniel, 571 F.3d 760, 762 (8th Cir. 2009) (grant of motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4) (addressing supplemental jurisdiction); Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (per curiam) (discussing absolute judicial immunity); King v. Beavers, 148 F.3d 1031, 1035 n.4 (8th Cir. 1998) (discussing, inter alia, qualified immunity). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Smith’s pending motions. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable D. P. Marshall Jr., United States District 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.
