David Erwin v. City of Paragould, Arkansas

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMay 27, 2020
Docket19-3208
StatusUnpublished

This text of David Erwin v. City of Paragould, Arkansas (David Erwin v. City of Paragould, Arkansas) 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
David Erwin v. City of Paragould, Arkansas, (8th Cir. 2020).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 19-3208 ___________________________

David Erwin

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

City of Paragould, Arkansas; Billy Mcgraw, State Patrol Officer; Arkansas State Police; John Does, Officers 1-3; Anthony Ganus, Deputy Sheriff, Greene County Arkansas (originally named as Anthony Gaines)

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro ____________

Submitted: May 20, 2020 Filed: May 27, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________

Before KELLY, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM. David Erwin appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his pro se action asserting a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Green County Sheriff’s Deputy Anthony Ganus. Upon careful de novo review of the record, we conclude that summary judgment was proper for the reasons stated by the district court. See Odom v. Kaizer, 864 F.3d 920, 921 (8th Cir. 2017) (grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo; summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; evidence is viewed and all reasonable inferences are drawn in nonmoving party’s favor). We further conclude that Erwin has forfeited consideration of his arguments that the district court improperly considered the station log, see Wever v. Lincoln County, Neb., 388 F.3d 601, 608 (8th Cir. 2004) (ordinarily court of appeals will not consider arguments raised for first time on appeal), and did not discuss his Freedom of Information Act requests or the timeliness of Ganus’s reply, see Waters v. Madison, 921 F.3d 725, 744 (8th Cir. 2019) (issues not meaningfully argued on appeal are waived). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Erwin’s request for a hearing is denied as moot. ______________________________

1 The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2-

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

Related

Nancy Wever v. James Carman
388 F.3d 601 (Eighth Circuit, 2004)
Charles Odom v. Kenan Kaizer
864 F.3d 920 (Eighth Circuit, 2017)
Charles Waters v. B. Madson
921 F.3d 725 (Eighth Circuit, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
David Erwin v. City of Paragould, Arkansas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-erwin-v-city-of-paragould-arkansas-ca8-2020.