Frederick Smith v. Rick McKelvey

667 F. App'x 883
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedAugust 4, 2016
Docket16-1726
StatusUnpublished

This text of 667 F. App'x 883 (Frederick Smith v. Rick McKelvey) 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
Frederick Smith v. Rick McKelvey, 667 F. App'x 883 (8th Cir. 2016).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Frederick Smith appeals district court’s 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) dismissal, without prejudice, of his pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Smith also sought to bring claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242; and under Arkansas law.

Upon careful de novo review, see Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam), we conclude that all of Smith’s federal claims were subject to dismissal, see Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 553, 557-58, 120 S.Ct. 1075, 145 L.Ed.2d 1047 (2000); Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973); Jones v. Frost, 770 F.3d 1183, 1185 (8th Cir. 2014), and that the district court was warranted in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Smith’s state-law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

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

Related

Linda RS v. Richard D.
410 U.S. 614 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Rotella v. Wood
528 U.S. 549 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Kevin Jones v. Mark Frost
770 F.3d 1183 (Eighth Circuit, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
667 F. App'x 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frederick-smith-v-rick-mckelvey-ca8-2016.