Sherman Raines v. John E. Potter

Eighth Circuit

Sherman Raines v. John E. Potter

215 F. App'x 563

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 7, 2007

Docket06-1463

StatusUnpublished

This text of 215 F. App'x 563 (Sherman Raines v. John E. Potter) 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

Sherman Raines v. John E. Potter, 215 F. App'x 563 (8th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Sherman Raines appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his employment-discrimination action and moves to consolidate the appeal with Appeal No. 06-1919. Because Raines’s pro se appellate brief contains no relevant argument and makes no reference to the summary judgment ruling, we grant appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with federal rules of appellate procedure. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a) (what appellant’s brief must contain); Carter v. Lutheran Med. Ctr., 87 F.3d 1025, 1026 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (dismissing pro se appeal where appellant’s brief presented no question for appeals court to decide; brief specifically provided no issues statement and did not identify any basis of alleged error by district court); Slack v. St. Louis County Gov’t, 919 F.2d 98, 99-100 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (summarily dismissing appeal where appellant’s brief contained no recitation of facts, did not point out basis of alleged district court error, and did not challenge district court’s reasoning); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 804 (8th Cir.1986) (pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with procedural law).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, and we deny Raines’s motion to consolidate.

1

. The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

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

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Sherman Raines appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his employment-discrimination action and moves to consolidate the appeal with Appeal No. 06-1919. Because Raines’s pro se appellate brief contains no relevant argument and makes no reference to the summary judgment ruling, we grant appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with federal rules of appellate procedure. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a) (what appellant’s brief must contain); Carter v. Lutheran Med. Ctr., 87 F.3d 1025, 1026 (8th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (dismissing pro se appeal where appellant’s brief presented no question for appeals court to decide; brief specifically provided no issues statement and did not identify any basis of alleged error by district court); Slack v. St. Louis County Gov’t, 919 F.2d 98, 99-100 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (summarily dismissing appeal where appellant’s brief contained no recitation of facts, did not point out basis of alleged district court error, and did not challenge district court’s reasoning); Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 804 (8th Cir.1986) (pro se litigants are not excused from compliance with procedural law).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, and we deny Raines’s motion to consolidate.

1

. The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 F. App'x 563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherman-raines-v-john-e-potter-ca8-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack