Filed: Jan. 10, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 06-1464 _ Roland K. Schaefer, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. United States Department of Education; * United States Department of Health * [UNPUBLISHED] and Human Services; United States * Department of Justice; United States * of America; John Does, 1-3, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: January 5, 2007 Filed: January 10, 2007 _ Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Ci
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 06-1464 _ Roland K. Schaefer, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. United States Department of Education; * United States Department of Health * [UNPUBLISHED] and Human Services; United States * Department of Justice; United States * of America; John Does, 1-3, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: January 5, 2007 Filed: January 10, 2007 _ Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Cir..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 06-1464
___________
Roland K. Schaefer, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Missouri.
United States Department of Education; *
United States Department of Health * [UNPUBLISHED]
and Human Services; United States *
Department of Justice; United States *
of America; John Does, 1-3, *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: January 5, 2007
Filed: January 10, 2007
___________
Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Roland E. Schaefer appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his lawsuit as
barred by sovereign immunity and an injunction issued in an earlier lawsuit. Having
carefully reviewed the record and considered Schaefer’s arguments, we find no basis
for reversal. See Lupiana v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
435 F.3d 842, 845 (8th Cir. 2006)
1
The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Missouri.
(de novo review of dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Atkinson v.
Bohn,
91 F.3d 1127, 1128-29 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (de novo review of
dismissal for failure to state claim). Accordingly, we affirm, and we deny Schaefer’s
pending motions on appeal. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-