Clowers v. Crandduck

Eighth Circuit

Clowers v. Crandduck

695 F. App'x 178

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 14, 2017

DocketNo. 16-4367

StatusPublished

This text of 695 F. App'x 178 (Clowers v. Crandduck) 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

Clowers v. Crandduck, 695 F. App'x 178 (8th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Tom Clowers appeals following the district court’s¹ dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, and its denial of his motion to reconsider the dismissal.

Having conducted a thorough review, we conclude that dismissal was proper for the reasons explained by the district court. See Plymouth Cty. v. Merscorp, Inc., 774 F.3d 1155, 1158 (8th Cir. 2014) (grant of motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

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

PER CURIAM.

Tom Clowers appeals following the district court’s¹ dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, and its denial of his motion to reconsider the dismissal.

Having conducted a thorough review, we conclude that dismissal was proper for the reasons explained by the district court. See Plymouth Cty. v. Merscorp, Inc., 774 F.3d 1155, 1158 (8th Cir. 2014) (grant of motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

695 F. App'x 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clowers-v-crandduck-ca8-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack