Filed: Oct. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-3327 _ Michael Smith lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Republic Services, Inc.; Wholly Owned Subsidiaries Operating Landfill Allied Services, LLC, doing business as Republic Services of Bridgeton, doing business as Allied Waste Services of Bridgeton lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis _ Submitted: October 5, 2018 Filed: Oct
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-3327 _ Michael Smith lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Republic Services, Inc.; Wholly Owned Subsidiaries Operating Landfill Allied Services, LLC, doing business as Republic Services of Bridgeton, doing business as Allied Waste Services of Bridgeton lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis _ Submitted: October 5, 2018 Filed: Octo..
More
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-3327 ___________________________ Michael Smith lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Republic Services, Inc.; Wholly Owned Subsidiaries Operating Landfill Allied Services, LLC, doing business as Republic Services of Bridgeton, doing business as Allied Waste Services of Bridgeton lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: October 5, 2018 Filed: October 12, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Michael Smith appeals the dismissal of his second amended complaint, which alleged state-law claims for nuisance and negligence and a federal claim under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court1 did not err in dismissing Smith’s second amended complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), 10(b), 12(b)(6). We affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2-