Alexandra Hussey v. Carol Pankow, No. 19-2479 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Beam and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case. Dismissal affirmed without comment; dismissal of state law claim modified to be without prejudice.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-2479 ___________________________ Alexandra Noelle Hussey lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Carol Pankow; Brianna Mehr; Natasha Jerde, formerly known as Natasha Lemler; Maurita Christensen; Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: February 26, 2020 Filed: March 2, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Alexandra Hussey appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of her pro se action. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we find 1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. no basis for reversal. We conclude that dismissal was proper, see Montin v. Moore, 846 F.3d 289, 292 (8th Cir. 2017) (de novo review); and that there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of her motion for recusal of the magistrate, the denial of leave to file a second amended complaint, or the denial of her post-judgment motions, see Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); D.M. by Bao Xiong v. Minn. State High Sch. League, 917 F.3d 994, 999 (8th Cir. 2019); Schriener v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 774 F.3d 442, 446 (8th Cir. 2014); Norman v. Ark. Dep’t of Educ., 79 F.3d 748, 750 (8th Cir. 1996). However, we modify the dismissal of the state-law claims to be without prejudice. See Ahmed v. United States, 147 F.3d 791, 797 (8th Cir. 1998) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction should be without prejudice) The judgment is affirmed as modified. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Hussey’s motion for a transcript. ______________________________ -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.
