Lena Lasher v. Nebraska Board of Pharmacy

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 31, 2019
Docket18-2235
StatusUnpublished

This text of Lena Lasher v. Nebraska Board of Pharmacy (Lena Lasher v. Nebraska Board of Pharmacy) 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
Lena Lasher v. Nebraska Board of Pharmacy, (8th Cir. 2019).

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-2235 ___________________________

Lena Lasher

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Nebraska State Board of Pharmacy, (NE BOP) State of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68508; Thomas L. Williams, MD, Chief Medical Officer Director, Division of Public Health State of Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services Lincoln, Nebraska 68508

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln ____________

Submitted: January 11, 2019 Filed: January 31, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM. Lena Lasher appeals the district court’s1 preservice dismissal of her pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging her constitutional rights were violated in a Nebraska State Board of Pharmacy disciplinary proceeding. Upon de novo review of the record, we agree with the district court that Lasher’s complaint did not state any viable claims. See Moore v. Sims, 200 F.3d 1170, 1171 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (de novo review of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) preservice dismissal); Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (de novo review of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A preservice dismissal). We also conclude that the district court did not violate Lasher’s rights by dismissing her complaint preservice or by not sua sponte granting her leave to amend her complaint. See Christiansen v. Clarke, 147 F.3d 655, 657-59 (8th Cir. 1998) (rejecting argument that § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is unconstitutional because it authorizes preservice dismissal of indigent prisoners’ claims without leave to amend). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

-2-

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

Related

Christiansen v. Clarke
147 F.3d 655 (Eighth Circuit, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lena Lasher v. Nebraska Board of Pharmacy, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lena-lasher-v-nebraska-board-of-pharmacy-ca8-2019.