Jay Driesen v. Michael Smith

584 F. App'x 292
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided November 28, 2014·No. 14-1890·Unpublished·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

584 F. App'x 292 (Jay Driesen v. Michael Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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