Filed: Dec. 02, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-2497 _ Charles A. LaLiberte lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Charles E. Samuels, Jr., Director of Bureau of Prisons; Christopher Nickrenz lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: November 29, 2016 Filed: December 2, 2016 [Unpublished] _ Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Charles L
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-2497 _ Charles A. LaLiberte lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Charles E. Samuels, Jr., Director of Bureau of Prisons; Christopher Nickrenz lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: November 29, 2016 Filed: December 2, 2016 [Unpublished] _ Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Charles La..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-2497
___________________________
Charles A. LaLiberte
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Charles E. Samuels, Jr., Director of Bureau of Prisons; Christopher Nickrenz
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: November 29, 2016
Filed: December 2, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Charles LaLiberte appeals after the district court1 dismissed his pro se
complaint. Upon careful review, we find no reason to reverse the dismissal order
1
The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
because, among other reasons, we agree with the district court that it had no personal
jurisdiction over defendants. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson,
444
U.S. 286, 291-92 (1980) (nonresident defendant must have minimum contacts such
that suit “does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice”);
Miller v. Nippon Carbon Co.,
528 F.3d 1087, 1090-91 (8th Cir. 2008) (de novo
review). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R.
47B.
______________________________
-2-