Eric Garland v. Hon. Mary Schroeder

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: December 11, 2024
• Docket: 24-1698
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-1698 ___________________________

Eric Garland

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Hon. Mary Bruntrager Schroeder, in her individual capacity; Hon. John R. Lasater, in his individual capacity; David Q. Betz, Esq.; Dr. Dean L. Rosen, in his individual capacity; Dr. Anthony J. Castro; Anthony J. Stemmler, in his individual capacity; Joan M. Gilmer, in her individual capacity

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: October 11, 2024 Filed: December 11, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

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

PER CURIAM. Eric Garland appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his pro se civil rights action involving state child custody proceedings and denial of his first motion for leave to file an amended complaint.2 Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we affirm. See Duffner v. City of St. Peters, 930 F.3d 973, 976 (8th Cir. 2019) (“We may affirm on any ground supported by the record.”); Knutson v. City of Fargo, 600 F.3d 992, 995 (8th Cir. 2010) (legal conclusions regarding district court’s subject matter jurisdiction are reviewed de novo); Amrine v. Brooks, 522 F.3d 823, 833 (8th Cir. 2008) (review of denial of motion for leave to file amended complaint is for abuse of discretion, but futility finding is reviewed de novo). Because the district court had jurisdiction to review this matter, we modify the dismissal to be with prejudice. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Sarah E. Pitlyk, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 As Garland does not address the denial of his second motion for leave to file an amended complaint, any arguments regarding the denial are waived. See Hess v. Ables, 714 F.3d 1048, 1051 n.2 (8th Cir. 2013) (claims not briefed on appeal are waived).

-2-