Jesse Smith v. Aqua-Care Marketing, LLC, No. 17-1615 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Murphy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case. The district court did not err in dismissing plaintiff's pro se malicious prosecution claim; affirmed without further comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-1615 ___________________________ Jesse Tyler Smith lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Aqua-Care Marketing, LLC, et al. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________ Submitted: November 7, 2017 Filed: December 18, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Jesse Smith brought this pro se diversity action against Aqua-Care Marketing, LLC and three of its officers and employees, asserting, inter alia, three breach of contract claims and a claim of malicious prosecution. Ruling on cross motions for summary judgment at the conclusion of discovery, the district court1 denied Smith’s motion as untimely, denied defendants summary judgment on the breach of contract claims, and granted summary judgment on the malicious prosecution claim. Some weeks later, the court entered a final order declining to exercise jurisdiction over the state law breach of contract claims and dismissing those claims without prejudice because the amount in controversy was far below the minimum required for federal diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Smith appeals the grant of summary judgment dismissing his malicious prosecution claim. He does not appeal the district court’s decision to dismiss the breach of contract claims without prejudice. Thus, those claims have not been finally resolved. Having carefully reviewed the record and the arguments on appeal, we conclude that summary judgment dismissing the malicious prosecution claim was properly granted. The record does not include evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find that law enforcement would not have brought criminal charges that were ultimately dismissed in the absence of false information knowingly supplied by defendants, or that defendants engaged in actions beyond merely supplying false information or making an accusation. See Peterson v. Kopp, 754 F.3d 594, 598 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo review); see also Fisher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 619 F.3d 811, 823 (8th Cir. 2010); Linn v. Montgomery, 2017 WL 4847687, at *6-7 (Iowa Oct. 27, 2017). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -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.
