Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Charles LaLiberte v. Charles Samuels, Jr., 16-2497 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 16-2497 Visitors: 25
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Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: November 29, 2016 Filed: December 2, 2016 [Unpublished] _ Before SHEPHERD, ARNOLD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.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
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                                [Unpublished]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-

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer