Scott Meyer v. Bryan McKinley

Eighth Circuit

Scott Meyer v. Bryan McKinley

655 F. App'x 522

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 23, 2016

Docket16-1209

StatusUnpublished

This text of 655 F. App'x 522 (Scott Meyer v. Bryan McKinley) 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

Scott Meyer v. Bryan McKinley, 655 F. App'x 522 (8th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

[Unpublished]

Scott Meyer filed a civil complaint raising claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 arising out of child-custody proceedings. The district court 1 granted defendants’ motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and this appeal followed. Having conducted de novo review of the record before us, and carefully considered the parties’ submissions on appeal, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for the reasons explained in the court’s thorough memorandum opinion. See Gomez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 676 F.3d 655, 660 (8th Cir. 2012) (dismissal for failure to state claim upon which relief could be granted); Edwards v. City of Jonesboro, 645 F,3d 1014, 1017 (8th Cir. 2011) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). We also conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint. See Ginsburg v. InBev NV/SA, 623 F.3d 1229, 1236 (8th Cir. 2010). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

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

PER CURIAM.

[Unpublished]

Scott Meyer filed a civil complaint raising claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 arising out of child-custody proceedings. The district court 1 granted defendants’ motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and this appeal followed. Having conducted de novo review of the record before us, and carefully considered the parties’ submissions on appeal, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for the reasons explained in the court’s thorough memorandum opinion. See Gomez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 676 F.3d 655, 660 (8th Cir. 2012) (dismissal for failure to state claim upon which relief could be granted); Edwards v. City of Jonesboro, 645 F,3d 1014, 1017 (8th Cir. 2011) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). We also conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint. See Ginsburg v. InBev NV/SA, 623 F.3d 1229, 1236 (8th Cir. 2010). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

655 F. App'x 522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-meyer-v-bryan-mckinley-ca8-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack