Eaton v. Minnesota Attorney General's Office

Eighth Circuit

Eaton v. Minnesota Attorney General's Office

445 F. App'x 901

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedDecember 28, 2011

Docket11-1949

StatusUnpublished

This text of 445 F. App'x 901 (Eaton v. Minnesota Attorney General's Office) 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

Eaton v. Minnesota Attorney General's Office, 445 F. App'x 901 (8th Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Alicia Eaton, on behalf of herself and her two minor children, appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of their civil-rights complaint for failure to state a claim. After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint, see Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir.2008) (standard of review); and that dismissal was proper, see Federer v. Gephardt, 363 F.3d 754, 757 (8th Cir.2004) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal is reviewed de novo). Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, except that we modify the dismissal of any state-law claims to be without prejudice, see Labickas v. Ark. State Univ., 78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam).

1

. The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, 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.

Alicia Eaton, on behalf of herself and her two minor children, appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of their civil-rights complaint for failure to state a claim. After careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint, see Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir.2008) (standard of review); and that dismissal was proper, see Federer v. Gephardt, 363 F.3d 754, 757 (8th Cir.2004) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal is reviewed de novo). Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, except that we modify the dismissal of any state-law claims to be without prejudice, see Labickas v. Ark. State Univ., 78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam).

1

. The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

445 F. App'x 901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eaton-v-minnesota-attorney-generals-office-ca8-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack