Vivian Houston v. Christopher Klaverkamp

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided November 16, 2023·No. 23-2644·Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 23-2644 ___________________________

Vivian Houston; Johnnie L. Ball

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Christopher Klaverkamp; Scott Amos

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________

Submitted: November 13, 2023 Filed: November 16, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

Vivian Houston and Johnnie Ball appeal following the district court’s1 with- prejudice dismissal of their civil rights action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

1 The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. Procedure 41(b). Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for willful disobedience of court orders. See Smith v. Gold Dust Casino, 526 F.3d 402, 404-05 (8th Cir. 2008). We likewise discern no abuse of discretion in the denial of appellants’ post-judgment motions. See Akpovi v. Douglas, 43 F.4th 832, 837 (8th Cir. 2022); Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 506 F.3d 1111, 1117 (8th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-

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

Vivian Houston v. Christopher Klaverkamp, (8th Cir. 2023).

Vivian Houston v. Christopher Klaverkamp (Vivian Houston v. Christopher Klaverkamp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. Gold Dust Casino
526 F.3d 402 (Eighth Circuit, 2008)
Murphy v. Missouri Department of Corrections
506 F.3d 1111 (Eighth Circuit, 2007)
Hafils Akpovi v. David Douglas
43 F.4th 832 (Eighth Circuit, 2022)