Filed: Dec. 14, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 08-3270 _ Diabate Amadou, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. J. B. Hunt Transport, Inc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. * _ Submitted: October 26, 2009 Filed: December 14, 2009 _ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Diabate Amadou appeals the district court’s1order dismissing his civil action for failure to state a claim for relief, and denyi
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 08-3270 _ Diabate Amadou, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. J. B. Hunt Transport, Inc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. * _ Submitted: October 26, 2009 Filed: December 14, 2009 _ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Diabate Amadou appeals the district court’s1order dismissing his civil action for failure to state a claim for relief, and denyin..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-3270
___________
Diabate Amadou, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of Minnesota.
J. B. Hunt Transport, Inc., *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: October 26, 2009
Filed: December 14, 2009
___________
Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Diabate Amadou appeals the district court’s1order dismissing his civil action
for failure to state a claim for relief, and denying his motion to amend the complaint.
Following de novo review, see O’Neil v. Simplicity, Inc.,
574 F.3d 501, 503 (8th Cir.
2009), we conclude that dismissal was proper for the reasons stated by the district
court, and that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend as
1
The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
futile. See Marmo v Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.,
457 F.3d 748, 755 (8th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny the pending motion.2
______________________________
2
We decline to address the numerous issues that Amadou raises for the first time
on appeal. See Flynn v. Chater,
107 F.3d 617, 620 (8th Cir. 1997).
-2-