Savior v. McGuire
This text of 61 F. App'x 318 (Savior v. McGuire) 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.
Opinion
Ole Savior appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his complaint. Having care[319]*319fully reviewed the record, we agree with the district court that Mr. Savior failed to state a First Amendment claim, see Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 513, 96 S.Ct. 1029, 47 L.Ed.2d 196 (1976), and that the remainder of his complaint did not state any viable federal claim. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing any pending state-law claims. See Labickas v. Ark. State Univ., 78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 968, 117 S.Ct. 395, 136 L.Ed.2d 310 (1996). The court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Savior’s motion to reconsider.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
61 F. App'x 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/savior-v-mcguire-ca8-2003.