Randall W. Enyeart v. State of Minnesota

Eighth Circuit

Randall W. Enyeart v. State of Minnesota

218 F. App'x 560

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 13, 2007

Docket06-1510

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 218 F. App'x 560 (Randall W. Enyeart v. State of Minnesota) 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

Randall W. Enyeart v. State of Minnesota, 218 F. App'x 560 (8th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Randall Enyeart and Rodney Mattmiller appeal from the district court’s 2 final order and judgment dismissing with prejudice, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), their action for declaratory relief against the State of Minnesota, two Minnesota officials, and three federal officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Upon de novo review, see M.P. ex rel. K. & D.P. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 721, 439 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir.2006) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction reviewed de novo); Stringer v. St. James R-1 Sch. Dist. 446 F.3d 799, 802 (8th Cir.2006) (dismissal for failure to state claim reviewed de novo), we agree with the district court’s well-reasoned order. We also conclude that the court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs’ motion to realign the parties. The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

2

. The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

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

PER CURIAM.

Randall Enyeart and Rodney Mattmiller appeal from the district court’s 2 final order and judgment dismissing with prejudice, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), their action for declaratory relief against the State of Minnesota, two Minnesota officials, and three federal officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Upon de novo review, see M.P. ex rel. K. & D.P. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 721, 439 F.3d 865, 867 (8th Cir.2006) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction reviewed de novo); Stringer v. St. James R-1 Sch. Dist. 446 F.3d 799, 802 (8th Cir.2006) (dismissal for failure to state claim reviewed de novo), we agree with the district court’s well-reasoned order. We also conclude that the court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs’ motion to realign the parties. The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

2

. The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

218 F. App'x 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randall-w-enyeart-v-state-of-minnesota-ca8-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack