Laney Harris v. City of Texarkana, Arkansas

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: June 23, 2020
• Docket: 19-3499
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 19-3499 ___________________________

Laney Harris

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

City of Texarkana, Arkansas, A Public Body Corporate; Penny Ruth-Bell, Mayor of the City of Texarkana, Arkansas, Individually and in her official capacities; Linda Teeters, Individually and in her official capacities; Tim Johnson, Individually and in his official capacities; Travis N. Odom, Individually and in his official capacities; Barbara S. Miner, Individually and in her official capacities; Terri Kenner Peavy, Individually and in her official capacities

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana ____________

Submitted: June 18, 2020 Filed: June 23, 2020 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRASZ, BEAM, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM. Laney Harris appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and related orders. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. We conclude that dismissal was proper, see Waters v. Madson, 921 F.3d 725, 734 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review); and that there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of Harris’s motions for default judgment, for leave to file a second amended complaint, or for modification of the court’s scheduling order, see Ellingsworth v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 949 F.3d 1097, 1100 (8th Cir. 2020) (plaintiff who seeks to amend after deadline has passed must show good cause); Angelo Iafrate Constr., LLC v. Potashnick Constr., Inc., 370 F.3d 715, 722 (8th Cir. 2004) (default judgment gives rise to inconsistent results when defendants are similarly situated); Bradford v. DANA Corp., 249 F.3d 807, 809 (8th Cir. 2001) (movant must show good cause to modify case management order). Harris’s appeal of the magistrate’s order imposing sanctions is not properly before us. See McDonald v. City of Saint Paul, 679 F.3d 698, 709 (8th Cir. 2012) (appellate court could not review magistrate’s order denying non-dispositive motion, because appellant failed to object to order before district court).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

-2-