William Edwards v. Ed O'Brian

Eighth Circuit

William Edwards v. Ed O'Brian

392 F. App'x 502

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 3, 2010

Docket10-1668

StatusUnpublished

This text of 392 F. App'x 502 (William Edwards v. Ed O'Brian) 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

William Edwards v. Ed O'Brian, 392 F. App'x 502 (8th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

William Simpson Edwards appeals the district court’s 1 judgment granting defendants summary judgment, and denying Edwards’s motions for leave to amend his complaint and for an injunction, in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.

Following careful de novo review, see Mason v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 559 F.3d 880, 884 (8th Cir.2009) (summary judgment standard of review), we find no basis for reversal. We also find that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint, see Popp Telcom v. Am. Sharecom, Inc., 210 F.3d 928, 943 (8th Cir.2000) (where amendment would likely result in burdens of additional discovery and delay to proceedings, court usually does not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend); or in denying Edwards’s request for an injunction, see Hinz v. Neuroscience, Inc., 538 F.3d 979, 986 (8th Cir.2008) (standard of review); Bank One, Utah v. Guttau, 190 F.3d 844, 847 (8th Cir.1999) (factors considered in ruling on request for permanent injunction). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

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

PER CURIAM.

William Simpson Edwards appeals the district court’s 1 judgment granting defendants summary judgment, and denying Edwards’s motions for leave to amend his complaint and for an injunction, in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.

Following careful de novo review, see Mason v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 559 F.3d 880, 884 (8th Cir.2009) (summary judgment standard of review), we find no basis for reversal. We also find that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint, see Popp Telcom v. Am. Sharecom, Inc., 210 F.3d 928, 943 (8th Cir.2000) (where amendment would likely result in burdens of additional discovery and delay to proceedings, court usually does not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend); or in denying Edwards’s request for an injunction, see Hinz v. Neuroscience, Inc., 538 F.3d 979, 986 (8th Cir.2008) (standard of review); Bank One, Utah v. Guttau, 190 F.3d 844, 847 (8th Cir.1999) (factors considered in ruling on request for permanent injunction). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

Bank One, Utah, National Association v. Michael K. Guttau, in His Official Capacity as Superintendent of Banking and Administrator of Electronic Transfer of Funds, Iowa Division of Banking, Iowa Department of Commerce, Comptroller of the Currency, Intervenor Plaintiff/amicion Behalf of Consumer Bankers Association Cash Station, Inc. Nationsbank, N.A. First National Bank of McCook Nebraska Norwest Bank Iowa, N.A. U.S. Bancorp Firstar Corporation, Amici on Behalf of Iowa Bankers Association Iowa Independent Bankers Association Iowa Credit Union League, Amici on Behalf Of

190 F.3d 844 (First Circuit, 1999)

Popp Telcom, Formerly Known as Ldb International Corporation, Inc., Humbird Securities, Company Northern Securities, Company, Washington Sharecom, Inc. v. American Sharecom, Inc. Steven C. Simon James J. Weinert William J. King, Popp Telcom, Formerly Known as Ldb International Corporation, Inc., Humbird Securities, Company Northern Securities, Company, Washington Sharecom, Inc. v. American Sharecom, Inc. Steven C. Simon James J. Weinert William J. King

210 F.3d 928 (Eighth Circuit, 2000)

Mason v. Correctional Medical Services, Inc.

559 F.3d 880 (Eighth Circuit, 2009)

Hinz v. Neuroscience, Inc.

538 F.3d 979 (Eighth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 F. App'x 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-edwards-v-ed-obrian-ca8-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack