John Carter v. William Muldoon, No. 19-1019 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Wollman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil Rights. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendants Muldoon and Stolz in their individual capacities based on a determination they were entitled to qualified immunity; no error in denying motion for recusal. [ October 17, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1019 ___________________________ John M. Carter, and on behalf of others Similarly situated lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. William Muldoon, individual capacity; Dave Stolz, individual capacity; Nebraska Law Enforcement Training Center; Does 1-25 inclusive lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha ____________ Submitted: October 11, 2019 Filed: October 18, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, WOLLMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. In this civil rights action, John M. Carter appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment. Viewing the record in a light most favorable to 1 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. Carter, we find that the district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants William Muldoon and Dave Stolz in their individual capacities based on a determination that they were entitled to qualified immunity. See Clark v. Clark, 926 F.3d 972, 977 (8th Cir. 2019) (de novo review). We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Carter’s motion for recusal. See Fletcher v. Conoco Pipe Line Co., 323 F.3d 661, 664 (8th Cir. 2003) (judge is presumed impartial, and party seeking recusal bears substantial burden of showing otherwise); Moran v. Clarke, 296 F.3d 638, 648 (8th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (standard of review). The judgment is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B; and Carter’s motion to supplement the record is denied. ______________________________ -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.
