Corey Fondren v. Michael White, No. 20-3217 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Melloy, and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiff does not meaningfully challenge the district court's order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and thereby waives any challenge to the order; arguments raised for the first time on appeal would not be considered. [ May 24, 2021 ]
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 20-3217 ___________________________ Corey Fondren lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Michael White, Police Officer, Individual Capacity; Unknown Saul, Police Officer, Individual Capacity; Unknown Mason, Police Officer, Individual Capacity lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: May 19, 2021 Filed: May 25, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Corey Fondren appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having reviewed the record and the arguments on appeal, we conclude that Fondren has waived any challenge to the district court’s ruling because he does not meaningfully challenge the district court’s bases for granting the officers’ unopposed summary judgment motion. See Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 638 (8th Cir. 2007). To the extent he intended to challenge the district court’s denial of his motion to be excused from his deposition after he voluntarily moved out of state during the proceedings, we discern no abuse of discretion. See Sheets v. Butera, 389 F.3d 772, 780 (8th Cir. 2004). We do not consider Fondren’s arguments regarding the timing of the summary judgment motion and Officer Michael White’s absence from Fondren’s deposition, because Fondren raised those arguments for the first time on appeal without having raised them in the district court during the proceedings. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004). In any event, those arguments are contradicted by the record. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern 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.
