Anthony Moore v. Leann Bertsch

Eighth Circuit

Anthony Moore v. Leann Bertsch

450 F. App'x 561

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 21, 2012

Docket11-3740

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 450 F. App'x 561 (Anthony Moore v. Leann Bertsch) 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

Anthony Moore v. Leann Bertsch, 450 F. App'x 561 (8th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

North Dakota inmate Anthony Moore appeals the district court’s 1 order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A based on its determination that personal jurisdiction over the only named defendant — the Director of North Dakota Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation — was lacking. To the extent Moore has not waived any challenge to the determination as to personal jurisdiction, see Meyers v. Starke, 420 F.3d 738, 743 (8th Cir.2005), we find that dismissal was proper, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (de novo review of § 1915A dismissal); see also Johnson v. Woodcock, 444 F.3d 953, 955-56 (8th Cir.2006) (discussing requirements for personal jurisdiction). The district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Leo I. Brisbois, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

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

PER CURIAM.

North Dakota inmate Anthony Moore appeals the district court’s 1 order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A based on its determination that personal jurisdiction over the only named defendant — the Director of North Dakota Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation — was lacking. To the extent Moore has not waived any challenge to the determination as to personal jurisdiction, see Meyers v. Starke, 420 F.3d 738, 743 (8th Cir.2005), we find that dismissal was proper, see Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (de novo review of § 1915A dismissal); see also Johnson v. Woodcock, 444 F.3d 953, 955-56 (8th Cir.2006) (discussing requirements for personal jurisdiction). The district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Leo I. Brisbois, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

450 F. App'x 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-moore-v-leann-bertsch-ca8-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack