Hammock v. Jensen

Eighth Circuit

Hammock v. Jensen

549 F. App'x 600

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 9, 2014

DocketNo. 13-2165

StatusPublished

This text of 549 F. App'x 600 (Hammock v. Jensen) 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

Hammock v. Jensen, 549 F. App'x 600 (8th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Calvin Hammock brought an action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act arising out of his detention and arrest and criminal charges brought against him that were later dismissed. Upon defendants’ various motions, the District Court¹ dismissed some defendants and claims under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (failure to state a claim) and the remainder under Rule 56 (summary judgment). Upon de novo review, see Bernini v. City of St. Paul, 665 F.3d 997, 1002-03 (8th Cir.) (Rule 56), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 526, 184 L.Ed.2d 338 (2012); Brooks v. Midwest Heart Grp., 655 F.3d 796, 799 (8th Cir.2011) (Rule 12(b)(6)), and careful consideration of Hammock’s arguments for reversal, we affirm for the reasons stated by the District Court.

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

PER CURIAM.

Calvin Hammock brought an action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act arising out of his detention and arrest and criminal charges brought against him that were later dismissed. Upon defendants’ various motions, the District Court¹ dismissed some defendants and claims under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (failure to state a claim) and the remainder under Rule 56 (summary judgment). Upon de novo review, see Bernini v. City of St. Paul, 665 F.3d 997, 1002-03 (8th Cir.) (Rule 56), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 526, 184 L.Ed.2d 338 (2012); Brooks v. Midwest Heart Grp., 655 F.3d 796, 799 (8th Cir.2011) (Rule 12(b)(6)), and careful consideration of Hammock’s arguments for reversal, we affirm for the reasons stated by the District Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

549 F. App'x 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammock-v-jensen-ca8-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack