Elroy Rogers v. U.S. Department of Agriculture

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJuly 25, 2019
Docket18-2845
StatusUnpublished

This text of Elroy Rogers v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (Elroy Rogers v. U.S. Department of Agriculture) 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
Elroy Rogers v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, (8th Cir. 2019).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-2845 ___________________________

Elroy Rogers

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

United States Department of Agriculture; Minnesota Board of Animal Health; Diane Sutton; Kris Petrini; Mike Curely; Carl Denkinger; Mike Fier; Kyle Mooney; Ryan Brunsvold; Mark Mather; Richard Maes; Michelle Dietrich; Leland Bush; Jeremy Schefers; Beth S. Thompson; Will Wiebe; Johnathan Fawbush; Michael L. Stine; Steven Just; Leah Hedman

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________

Submitted: July 22, 2019 Filed: July 25, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM. Elroy Rogers appeals the district court’s1 grant of defendants’ motions to dismiss his complaint, which he identified as being brought under the Administrative Procedures Act. Upon de novo review, we agree with the district court that dismissal of Rogers’s complaint was warranted. See Compart’s Boar Store, Inc. v. United States, 829 F.3d 600, 604 (8th Cir. 2016) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 848-49 (8th Cir. 2014) (dismissal for failure to state claim). We conclude that the district court also did not err in denying Rogers’s motions asserting judicial bias and prejudice. See Bannister v. Delo, 100 F.3d 610, 614 (8th Cir. 1996) (reviewing for abuse of discretion whether disqualification is required in particular case). The judgment is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B; and Rogers’s appellate motion is denied. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge 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, now retired.

-2-

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

Related

Alan Jeffrey Bannister v. Paul K. Delo
100 F.3d 610 (Eighth Circuit, 1997)
Samvel Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
760 F.3d 843 (Eighth Circuit, 2014)
Compart's Boar Store, Inc. v. United States
829 F.3d 600 (Eighth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Elroy Rogers v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elroy-rogers-v-us-department-of-agriculture-ca8-2019.