Filed: Feb. 03, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 04-2166 _ Joseph E. Manley, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Eric Robinson; Wayne Dawson, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellees. * _ Submitted: February 1, 2005 Filed: February 3, 2005 _ Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Joseph E. Manley appeals the district court’s1 order granting defendants summary judgment and dismissing his civil actio
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 04-2166 _ Joseph E. Manley, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. Eric Robinson; Wayne Dawson, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellees. * _ Submitted: February 1, 2005 Filed: February 3, 2005 _ Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Joseph E. Manley appeals the district court’s1 order granting defendants summary judgment and dismissing his civil action..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 04-2166
___________
Joseph E. Manley, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Southern District of Iowa.
Eric Robinson; Wayne Dawson, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: February 1, 2005
Filed: February 3, 2005
___________
Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Joseph E. Manley appeals the district court’s1 order granting defendants
summary judgment and dismissing his civil action. After carefully reviewing the
record, we conclude that the judgment was proper because defendants had reasonable
suspicion to stop Manley and thereafter had probable cause to arrest him, and the
1
The Honorable Ross A. Walters, Chief United States Magistrate Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by
consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
ordinance, as applied to Manley, was not unconstitutional nor is his facial challenge
valid. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-