Jay Driesen v. Michael Smith

584 F. App'x 292
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedNovember 28, 2014
Docket14-1890
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 584 F. App'x 292 (Jay Driesen v. Michael Smith) 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
Jay Driesen v. Michael Smith, 584 F. App'x 292 (8th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

*293 PER CURIAM.

Jay Driesen appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his civil complaint asserting that his rights were violated in connection with prior state-court proceedings. Upon careful de novo review, we agree with the district court that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See Minch Family LLLP v. Buffalo-Red River Watershed Dist., 628 F.3d 960, 965 (8th Cir.2010) (de novo standard of review). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Driesen’s request for leave to amend his complaint. See Horras v. Am. Capital Strategies, Ltd., 729 F.3d 798, 804 (8th Cir.2013) (district court has considerable discretion to deny post-judgment motion for leave to amend), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1346, 188 L.Ed.2d 310 (2014).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

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

Related

Doe v. United States
210 F. Supp. 3d 1169 (W.D. Missouri, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
584 F. App'x 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jay-driesen-v-michael-smith-ca8-2014.