George J. Fiorentino v. Bill Vanderbilt

Eighth Circuit

George J. Fiorentino v. Bill Vanderbilt

8 F. App'x 572

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedApril 11, 2001

Docket00-2520

StatusUnpublished

This text of 8 F. App'x 572 (George J. Fiorentino v. Bill Vanderbilt) 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

George J. Fiorentino v. Bill Vanderbilt, 8 F. App'x 572 (8th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

George James Fiorentino appeals the district court’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of Fiorentino’s action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and state law. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude Fiorentino failed to state any claims on which relief could be granted. See Phillips v. Ford Motor Co., 83 F.3d 235, 239 (8th Cir.1996) (standard of review). We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Fiorentino’s state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), but the dismissal of these claims should be without prejudice, see Franklin v. Zain, 152 F.3d 783, 786 (8th Cir.1998). We thus affirm the judgment but modify the dismissal of the pendent state claims to be without prejudice. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

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

PER CURIAM.

George James Fiorentino appeals the district court’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of Fiorentino’s action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), and state law. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude Fiorentino failed to state any claims on which relief could be granted. See Phillips v. Ford Motor Co., 83 F.3d 235, 239 (8th Cir.1996) (standard of review). We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Fiorentino’s state law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), but the dismissal of these claims should be without prejudice, see Franklin v. Zain, 152 F.3d 783, 786 (8th Cir.1998). We thus affirm the judgment but modify the dismissal of the pendent state claims to be without prejudice. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 F. App'x 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-j-fiorentino-v-bill-vanderbilt-ca8-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack