Filed: Jun. 02, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-3889 _ Deon Eli Anderson lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Department of the Air Force lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis _ Submitted: May 30, 2017 Filed: June 2, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Deon Eli Anderson appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary ju
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-3889 _ Deon Eli Anderson lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Department of the Air Force lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis _ Submitted: May 30, 2017 Filed: June 2, 2017 [Unpublished] _ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Deon Eli Anderson appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary jud..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-3889
___________________________
Deon Eli Anderson
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Department of the Air Force
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: May 30, 2017
Filed: June 2, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Deon Eli Anderson appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary
judgment in his action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), in which he
1
The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
challenged a term of debarment from entering into federal government contracts. He
argued that the length of the term of debarment imposed by the Department of the Air
Force violated federal law. We agree with the district court that there is no basis for
concluding that the length of the term was not in accordance with the law or was
arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. See Rohr v. Reliance Bank,
826 F.3d
1046, 1052 (8th Cir. 2016) (reviewing de novo grant of summary judgment); Bettor
Racing, Inc. v. Nat’l Indian Gaming Comm’n,
812 F.3d 648, 651 (8th Cir. 2016) (de
novo review of district court’s decision on whether agency action violated APA). We
deny Anderson’s pending motion to supplement the record. The judgment is
affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-