Hammock v. NASA Headquarters

Eighth Circuit

Hammock v. NASA Headquarters

669 F. App'x 326

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided October 4, 2016·No. No. 16-1301·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Calvin Hammock appeals after the district court¹ dismissed his pro se complaint. Upon careful review, we find no reason to reverse the dismissal order because, among other reasons, we agree with the district court that Hammock failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); Kelly v. City of Omaha, 813 F.3d 1070, 1075 (8th Cir. 2016) (de novo review). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Footnotes

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

PER CURIAM.

Calvin Hammock appeals after the district court¹ dismissed his pro se complaint. Upon careful review, we find no reason to reverse the dismissal order because, among other reasons, we agree with the district court that Hammock failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); Kelly v. City of Omaha, 813 F.3d 1070, 1075 (8th Cir. 2016) (de novo review). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Footnotes

Hammock v. NASA Headquarters, 669 F. App'x 326 (8th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

669 F. App'x 326 (Hammock v. NASA Headquarters) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related