Filed: Nov. 08, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 06-2300 _ Marlene Fearing, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States M.A. Fearing Companies, Inc.; M.A. * District Court for the Fearing, Inc.; Progressive Real Estate, * District of Minnesota. Inc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Plaintiffs, * * v. * * City of Lake St. Croix Beach; Mary * Parr; Robert ‘Bob’ Swenson; Linda * O’Donnell, personally and as * employees/agents of City of Lake St. * Croix, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: November 5,
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 06-2300 _ Marlene Fearing, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States M.A. Fearing Companies, Inc.; M.A. * District Court for the Fearing, Inc.; Progressive Real Estate, * District of Minnesota. Inc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Plaintiffs, * * v. * * City of Lake St. Croix Beach; Mary * Parr; Robert ‘Bob’ Swenson; Linda * O’Donnell, personally and as * employees/agents of City of Lake St. * Croix, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: November 5, 2..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 06-2300
___________
Marlene Fearing, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
M.A. Fearing Companies, Inc.; M.A. * District Court for the
Fearing, Inc.; Progressive Real Estate, * District of Minnesota.
Inc., *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Plaintiffs, *
*
v. *
*
City of Lake St. Croix Beach; Mary *
Parr; Robert ‘Bob’ Swenson; Linda *
O’Donnell, personally and as *
employees/agents of City of Lake St. *
Croix, *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: November 5, 2007
Filed: November 8, 2007
___________
Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Marlene Fearing appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of a complaint wherein
Fearing and three business entities asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state
law. The business entities were dismissed from this appeal after they failed to respond
to a show-cause order related to the need for appellate counsel. Thus, the only issue
that remains is the dismissal without prejudice of Fearing’s state-law claims, over
which the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c)(3), and we find no abuse of discretion, see Gibson v. Weber,
433 F.3d 642,
647 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R.
47B.
______________________________
¹The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
-2-