Warren E. Nelson v. Kenneth D. Butler

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: March 24, 1997
• Docket: 96-2089
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-2089 ___________

Warren E. Nelson, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Kenneth D. Butler, individually * and as an attorney member, * Appeal from the United States currently of Clure, Eaton, Butler* District Court for the Law Office and formerly of Van * District of Minnesota. Evera, Clure, Butler & Michelson,* P.A. law firms respectively; * [UNPUBLISHED] David R. Michelson, individually * and as an attorney member, * currently of Clure, Eaton, * Butler Law Office and formerly of* Van Evera, Clure, Butler & * Michelson, P.A., law firms * respectively, * * Appellees. * ___________

Submitted: March 7, 1997

Filed: March 24, 1997 ___________

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

Warren E. Nelson appeals from the district court's1 order granting summary judgment to defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Having carefully reviewed the record and the briefs, we conclude summary judgment was proper and the district court did not

1 The Honorable Michael James Davis, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Raymond L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. abuse its discretion in granting defendants a permanent injunction. An extended opinion would therefore lack precedential value. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by conducting a hearing on defendants' summary judgment motion prior to the deadline for completion of discovery, and granting summary judgment several months later. See Cook v. Kartridg Pak Co., 840 F.2d 602, 604 (8th Cir. 1988) (standard of review); cf. Bright v. Standard Register Co., 66 F.3d 171, 172 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Finally, we deny Nelson's request for oral argument.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT

-2-