Allen Huenefeld v. Michael Carr

395 F. App'x 309
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedOctober 5, 2010
Docket10-1780
StatusUnpublished

This text of 395 F. App'x 309 (Allen Huenefeld v. Michael Carr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Allen Huenefeld v. Michael Carr, 395 F. App'x 309 (8th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Iowa inmate Men Huenefeld appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Having conducted careful de novo review of the record, see Mack v. Dillon, 594 F.3d 620, 622 (8th Cir.2010) (per curiam) (standard of review), we agree with the district court that summary judgment was warranted. Further, Huenefeld did not make the required showing below that summary judgment was premature; and his complaints on appeal regarding the effectiveness of his appointed counsel are not a basis for reversal, see Taylor v. Dickel, 293 F.3d 427, 431 (8th Cir.2002). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

MacK v. Dillon
594 F.3d 620 (Eighth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
395 F. App'x 309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-huenefeld-v-michael-carr-ca8-2010.