Calvin Allen v. Seth Gomez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: December 3, 2024
• Docket: 23-3161
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 23-3161 ___________________________

Calvin Allen; Marixia Maldonado

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Seth Gomez; Bipin J. Patel, Individual and Corporate Capacity; Laxmi Enterprise, Inc., Corporate Capacity

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

Ozark, Inn

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant

Chief Paul F. Williams, Individual and Official Capacity; Detective Kelly Patton, Individual and Official Capacity; Springfield Police Department, Official and Corporate Capacity; Amanda L. Simrin, Individual Capacity; Dominic L. Jordon, Individual Capacity; Baily D. Stoddard, Individual Capacity; Rachel E. Slobig, Individual Capacity

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield ____________

Submitted: November 26, 2024 Filed: December 3, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Calvin Allen, Sr. and Marixia Maldonado appeal following the district court’s1 dismissal of their pro se civil rights action arising from the death of their son, Calvin Allen, Jr. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. See Glick v. W. Power Sports, Inc., 944 F.3d 714, 717- 18 (8th Cir. 2019) (de novo review of grant of motion to dismiss for failure to state claim; abuse of discretion review of denial of motion for default judgment); Elmore v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., 844 F.3d 764, 767 (8th Cir. 2016) (abuse of discretion review of decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction); Schooley v. Kennedy, 712 F.2d 372, 374 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (abuse of discretion review of dismissal for failure to prosecute). We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of appellants’ Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motions. See Schoffstall v. Henderson, 223 F.3d 818, 827 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny the motion to supplement the record filed by appellees Patel and Laxmi Enterprise, Inc. ______________________________

1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

-2-