Lena Lasher v. Nebraska Board of Pharmacy, No. 18-2235 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Shepherd, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. The district court did not err in dismissing this Section 1983 action alleging plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated in a Board of Pharmacy disciplinary proceeding; the complaint failed to state a claim, and the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint preservice or by not sua sponte granting plaintiff leave to amend. [ January 30, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 18-2235 ___________________________ Lena Lasher lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Nebraska State Board of Pharmacy, (NE BOP) State of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68508; Thomas L. Williams, MD, Chief Medical Officer Director, Division of Public Health State of Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services Lincoln, Nebraska 68508 lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln ____________ Submitted: January 11, 2019 Filed: January 31, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Lena Lasher appeals the district court’s1 preservice dismissal of her pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging her constitutional rights were violated in a Nebraska State Board of Pharmacy disciplinary proceeding. Upon de novo review of the record, we agree with the district court that Lasher’s complaint did not state any viable claims. See Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (de novo review of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) preservice dismissal); Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (de novo review of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A preservice dismissal). We also conclude that the district court did not violate Lasher’s rights by dismissing her complaint preservice or by not sua sponte granting her leave to amend her complaint. See Christiansen v. Clarke, 147 F.3d 655, 657-59 (8th Cir. 1998) (rejecting argument that § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is unconstitutional because it authorizes preservice dismissal of indigent prisoners’ claims without leave to amend). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. -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.
