Filed: Jan. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-2224 _ Taofeek A. Quadri lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. United States of America; Mark T. Esper, Secretary of the Army1 lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana _ Submitted: January 3, 2018 Filed: January 11, 2018 [Unpublished] _ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Taofeek A. Quadri brought an em
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-2224 _ Taofeek A. Quadri lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. United States of America; Mark T. Esper, Secretary of the Army1 lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana _ Submitted: January 3, 2018 Filed: January 11, 2018 [Unpublished] _ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Taofeek A. Quadri brought an emp..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-2224
___________________________
Taofeek A. Quadri
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
United States of America; Mark T. Esper, Secretary of the Army1
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana
____________
Submitted: January 3, 2018
Filed: January 11, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Taofeek A. Quadri brought an employment-discrimination action against the
Secretary of the Army. The district court concluded that Quadri’s claims were
1
Mark T. Esper has been appointed to serve as Secretary of the Army, and is
substituted as appellee pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c).
nonjusticiable under Feres v. United States,
340 U.S. 135, 146 (1950), and dismissed
the action with prejudice. On appeal, Quadri contends only that the dismissal should
have been without prejudice. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court
agrees. See Hupp v. U.S. Dep’t of Army,
144 F.3d 1144, 1148 (8th Cir. 1998); Wood
v. United States,
968 F.2d 738, 740 (8th Cir. 1992).
The judgment is modified to be a dismissal without prejudice, and is otherwise
undisturbed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. The pending motion for a stay is denied.
______________________________
-2-