Dumas v. Dumolt

Eighth Circuit

Dumas v. Dumolt

115 F. App'x 323

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedDecember 20, 2004

DocketNo. 04-1522

StatusPublished

This text of 115 F. App'x 323 (Dumas v. Dumolt) 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

Dumas v. Dumolt, 115 F. App'x 323 (8th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Donnie Ray Dumas appeals the district court’s

* preservice dismissal of Dumas’s Bivens action. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude dismissal was proper because Dumas failed to state a constitutional claim. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

We also grant Dumas’s motion to appeal in forma pauperis, and instruct the district court-which assessed an initial partial appellate filing fee-to assess and collect the balance of the appellate filing fee. See Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484-85 (8th Cir.1997) (per curiam). Finally, we deny Dumas’s request for mandamus relief, which appears to raise claims not previously presented to the district court.

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

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

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Donnie Ray Dumas appeals the district court’s

* preservice dismissal of Dumas’s Bivens action. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude dismissal was proper because Dumas failed to state a constitutional claim. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

We also grant Dumas’s motion to appeal in forma pauperis, and instruct the district court-which assessed an initial partial appellate filing fee-to assess and collect the balance of the appellate filing fee. See Henderson v. Norris, 129 F.3d 481, 484-85 (8th Cir.1997) (per curiam). Finally, we deny Dumas’s request for mandamus relief, which appears to raise claims not previously presented to the district court.

The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 F. App'x 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dumas-v-dumolt-ca8-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack