Jeremy Dunn v. Shane Penfield

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: December 24, 2024
• Docket: 24-1804
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-1804 ___________________________

Jeremy Dunn; Kevin Love

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Shane Penfield, in his official and individual capacities; Penfield Law Firm Professional LLC; Marty Jackley, in his individual capacity; Matthew Barnes, in his individual and official capacity as Mayor of the City of Lemmon; Thomas Frieberg, in his individual capacity; City of Lemmon, SD; City of Dupree, SD; Town of Bison, SD; City of McLaughlin, SD; City of McIntosh, SD; City of Timber Lake, SD; Corson County, SD; Dewey County, SD; Ziebach County, SD; Unknown Individual Officers, Agents, and Directors, in their individual and/or official capacities; Perkins County, SD; City of Faith, SD

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota ____________

Submitted: December 19, 2024 Filed: December 24, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM. South Dakota residents Jeremy Dunn and Kevin Love appeal the dismissal of their pro se civil rights and antitrust action against numerous municipalities and government officials. They also challenge the district court’s1 denial of their motion to amend the complaint and file a third amended complaint.

Upon careful review, we find no basis to reverse the dismissal, see Tholen v. Assist Am., Inc., 970 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir. 2020) (appellate court reviews grant of motion to dismiss de novo); and we also conclude that the district court did not err in denying the motion to amend the complaint as futile, see Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. City of Richmond Heights, 92 F.4th 763, 769 (8th Cir. 2024) (denial of leave to amend complaint is generally reviewed under abuse of discretion standard, but appellate court reviews legal conclusions de novo when district court bases denial on futility of proposed amendments).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also deny the pending appellate motions. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.

-2-