Elizabeth Fedynich v. Sam Stalkfleet
This text of Elizabeth Fedynich v. Sam Stalkfleet (Elizabeth Fedynich v. Sam Stalkfleet) 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.
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________
No. 25-2249 ___________________________
Elizabeth Fedynich; Nicole Fedynich
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants
v.
Sam Stalkfleet; Trinatee Morrow
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
Drew Manager
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant
Nest Property Management Group LLC; Malory Apartments; 12th Ave SW Nest Property Owner
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________
Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids ____________
Submitted: May 28, 2026 Filed: June 2, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________
Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.
Elizabeth and Nicole Fedynich appeal following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in their pro se action alleging disability discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Rehabilitation Act (RA), and retaliation under the FHA. Upon de novo review, we affirm the grant of summary judgment for the reasons stated by the district court. See 42 U.S.C. § 3617 (FHA retaliation); Trambly v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Neb., 145 F.4th 922, 926 (8th Cir. 2025) (standard of review; summary judgment was proper on RA claims because plaintiff did not establish he had impairment that substantially limited any major life activities); One Love Hous., LLC v. City of Anoka, 93 F.4th 424, 430 (8th Cir. 2024) (disability is one of several elements plaintiffs must establish to recover under FHA).
We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s rulings regarding pretrial matters, dismissal without prejudice, and appointment of counsel. See Graham v. Mentor Worldwide LLC, 998 F.3d 800, 804-05 (8th Cir. 2021) (voluntary dismissal); Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 849-50 (8th Cir. 2018) (appointment of counsel); Soliman v. Johanns, 412 F.3d 920, 921-22 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review; pro se litigants must comply with court rules). We cannot review the magistrate judge’s rulings on the Fedynichs’ many non-dispositive motions that were not appealed to the district court, see McDonald v. City of Saint Paul, 679 F.3d 698, 709 (8th Cir. 2012); and we find no merit to their allegations of judicial bias based on the court’s rulings, see Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We grant appellants’ motion, and seal the brief and reply brief; and deny appellees’ motion to strike. ______________________________
1 The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Elizabeth Fedynich v. Sam Stalkfleet, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elizabeth-fedynich-v-sam-stalkfleet-ca8-2026.