Susan Lloyd v. TD Bank USA NA

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: February 21, 2024
• Docket: 23-3079
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 23-3079 ___________________________

Susan Lloyd

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

TD Bank USA NA CO Target Enterprise Inc.; Target Corporation

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________

Submitted: February 15, 2024 Filed: February 21, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

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

PER CURIAM.

Pennsylvania resident Susan Lloyd appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of her pro se civil complaint asserting claims of discrimination under the Americans with

1 The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. Disabilities Act (ADA) against Target Corporation, as well as federal and state claims related to debt collection. She also challenges the district court’s denial of her motion for leave to file a second amended complaint.

After careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Lloyd’s ADA claim without prejudice because it was misjoined. See Stephens v. Does, 777 Fed. Appx. 176, 177 (8th Cir. 2019) (unpublished per curiam) (standard of review). We also conclude the district court did not err in dismissing her remaining federal and state claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Christopherson v. Bushner, 33 F.4th 495, 499 (8th Cir. 2022) (standard of review). Finally, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lloyd leave to file her second amended complaint. See In re 2007 Novastar Fin. Inc., Sec. Lit., 579 F.3d 878, 884-85 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); Knowles v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., 2 F.4th 751, 758 (8th Cir. 2021) (affirming denial of leave to amend and with-prejudice dismissal where, despite previous amendments, plaintiff unable to plead adequate claim).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________

-2-