Kenneth Kunzer v. Stuart Foster

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: January 5, 2026
• Docket: 25-2256
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 25-2256 ___________________________

Kenneth Raymond Kunzer, Grantor

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Stuart G. Foster, sued in his individual capacity; DeAnna Foster, sued in her individual capacity; Carpets' N Moore, Inc.; Kim A. Ach, sued in her individual capacity; Samuel S. Rufer, attorney at law - sued in his individual and official capacity; Gretchen D. Thilmony, Judge of Minnesota District Court - sued in her individual and official capacity; Mark J. Kemper, attorney at law - sued in his individual and official capacity; Patrick A. Bakken, attorney at law - sued in his individual and official capacity; The Estate of Steve B. Ach

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________

Submitted: December 15, 2025 Filed: January 5, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM. Kenneth Kunzer appeals following the district court’s1 dismissal of his pro se civil action and the court’s entry of sanctions against Kunzer. After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. See Ingram v. Ark. Dep’t of Corr., 91 F.4th 924, 927 (8th Cir. 2024) (standard of review). We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Kunzer’s state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (allowing district courts to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim after dismissing all original jurisdiction claims); King v. City of Crestwood, 899 F.3d 643, 651 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review). Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to alter or amend its dismissal order. See Ryan v. Ryan, 889 F.3d 499, 507-08 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also grant Kunzer’s motion to dismiss the appeal as to the sanctions order under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 42(b). ______________________________

1 The Honorable Laura M. Provinzino, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-