Raphael Mendez v. FMC Minnesota, No. 17-2438 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Kelly and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Bivens. Defendants' summary judgment affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2438 ___________________________ Raphael Mendez lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. FMC Minnesota; Lt. Holbus, (SHU); Officer Kepp; Eberle, Reporting Employee; A. Culberbon, Report Delivering Person; Any Other Unknown Individuals such as the Property R and D Operation lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: June 7, 2018 Filed: June 26, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Federal civil detainee Raphael Mendez appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his pro se action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude, for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, that Mendez’s claims failed as a matter of law. See Odom v. Kaizer, 864 F.3d 920, 921 (8th Cir. 2017) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo; summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; evidence is viewed, and all reasonable inferences are drawn, in favor of nonmoving party). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Becky R. Thorson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -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.
