Teresa Ann Peters v. Mutual of Omaha

Eighth Circuit

Teresa Ann Peters v. Mutual of Omaha

9 F. App'x 588

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 31, 2001

Docket00-1894

StatusUnpublished

This text of 9 F. App'x 588 (Teresa Ann Peters v. Mutual of Omaha) 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

Teresa Ann Peters v. Mutual of Omaha, 9 F. App'x 588 (8th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Teresa A. Peters appeals from the district court’s 1 judgment for her former employer, Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, following a bench trial in her action asserting violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654.

After careful review of the parties’ submissions, we conclude that the district court properly awarded judgment to Mutual. See Rankin v. Seagate Techs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir.2001) (FMLA); Cossette v. Minn. Power & Light, 188 F.3d 964, 972 (8th Cir.1999) *589 (retaliation); Snow v. Ridgeview Med. Ctr., 128 F.Sd 1201, 1205-06 (8th Cir.1997) (ADA). Peters’s argument that her trial counsel was ineffective fails, because a civil litigant has no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. See Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988).

Peters’s remaining arguments either amount to a contention that the district court should not have believed the testimony of defense witnesses, a contention we must reject, see United States v. Adipietro, 983 F.2d 1468, 1479 (8th Cir.1993); or fail for lack of a showing of any prejudicial abuse of discretion by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

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

PER CURIAM.

Teresa A. Peters appeals from the district court’s 1 judgment for her former employer, Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company, following a bench trial in her action asserting violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654.

After careful review of the parties’ submissions, we conclude that the district court properly awarded judgment to Mutual. See Rankin v. Seagate Techs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1145, 1147 (8th Cir.2001) (FMLA); Cossette v. Minn. Power & Light, 188 F.3d 964, 972 (8th Cir.1999) *589 (retaliation); Snow v. Ridgeview Med. Ctr., 128 F.Sd 1201, 1205-06 (8th Cir.1997) (ADA). Peters’s argument that her trial counsel was ineffective fails, because a civil litigant has no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. See Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988).

Peters’s remaining arguments either amount to a contention that the district court should not have believed the testimony of defense witnesses, a contention we must reject, see United States v. Adipietro, 983 F.2d 1468, 1479 (8th Cir.1993); or fail for lack of a showing of any prejudicial abuse of discretion by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Thomas M. Shanahan, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 F. App'x 588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teresa-ann-peters-v-mutual-of-omaha-ca8-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack