Filed: May 27, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 03-3042 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Randall Brian Jarvis, also known as * Christopher Michaelson, also known * [UNPUBLISHED] as Josiah Richards, also known as * Order of Jesus Christ's Disciples, also * known as Order of Christian * Disciples, also known as Church of * Jesus Christ Disciples, also known as * Christian Disciples In
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 03-3042 _ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Randall Brian Jarvis, also known as * Christopher Michaelson, also known * [UNPUBLISHED] as Josiah Richards, also known as * Order of Jesus Christ's Disciples, also * known as Order of Christian * Disciples, also known as Church of * Jesus Christ Disciples, also known as * Christian Disciples Int..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 03-3042
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the Western
* District of Missouri.
Randall Brian Jarvis, also known as *
Christopher Michaelson, also known * [UNPUBLISHED]
as Josiah Richards, also known as *
Order of Jesus Christ's Disciples, also *
known as Order of Christian *
Disciples, also known as Church of *
Jesus Christ Disciples, also known as *
Christian Disciples International, *
*
Appellant. *
___________
Submitted: May 21, 2004
Filed: May 27, 2004
___________
Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Randall Brian Jarvis (Jarvis) appeals the district court’s1 order granting the
government a default judgment against him for a permanent injunction. We conclude
that the court did not abuse its discretion. See Forsythe v. Hales,
255 F.3d 487, 490
(8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review). Jarvis failed to respond to the complaint;
thereafter, in violation of court rules, he attempted to submit by facsimile his response
to the government’s motion for a default order, and then did not cure the problem by
submitting a proper filing after the court informed him that his facsimile would not
be accepted; and he did not respond to the court’s two show-cause orders. Jarvis’s
arguments on the merits are thus irrelevant. See Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v.
Fingerhut Corp.,
86 F.3d 852, 857 (8th Cir. 1996); Brown v. Kenron Aluminum &
Glass Corp.,
477 F.2d 526, 531 (8th Cir. 1973).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1
The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
-2-