Kristy Keirsey v. LaWanda Newton

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMarch 13, 2026
Docket25-1627
StatusUnpublished

This text of Kristy Keirsey v. LaWanda Newton (Kristy Keirsey v. LaWanda Newton) 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
Kristy Keirsey v. LaWanda Newton, (8th Cir. 2026).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 25-1627 ___________________________

Kristy Michelle Keirsey

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

LaWanda Newton, Supervisor of Reasonable Accomodations; Gregory Buerschen, Dental Chief and Supervisor; Kimberly Unknown, of Department of Labor - Claims; Edwina Dickerson, HR Specialist Workers Compensation; Angela Smith, Senior Strategic Business Partner Human Resources; Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veteran Affairs; Elena S. Goldstein, Deputy Solicitor of Labor Front Office U.S. Department of Labor; Department of Veterans Affairs; Paul Hopkins, Director; Ashley Leopold, Environment of Care/Safety

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau ____________

Submitted: March 10, 2026 Filed: March 13, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________

Before BENTON, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM.

Kristy Keirsey appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of her pro se action raising civil rights and Federal Torts Claim Act claims arising from her federal employment. After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that dismissal was proper for the reasons stated by the district court. See Montin v. Moore, 846 F.3d 289, 292 (8th Cir. 2017) (de novo review of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)). We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of Keirsey’s motion to amend her complaint, see Reuter v. Jax Ltd., Inc., 711 F.3d 918, 921-22 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review; district court may deny leave to amend complaint if amendment would be futile); and no merit to her allegations of judicial bias, see Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (judicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for finding of bias).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Keirsey’s pending motions. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-

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

Related

Liteky v. United States
510 U.S. 540 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Douglas Reuter v. Jax Ltd., Inc.
711 F.3d 918 (Eighth Circuit, 2013)
John Montin v. Y. Moore
846 F.3d 289 (Eighth Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kristy Keirsey v. LaWanda Newton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kristy-keirsey-v-lawanda-newton-ca8-2026.