Filed: Oct. 24, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-1344 _ Bennett-Charles Formanack lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Stillwater Towing Inc.; Richard J. Ritzer; Michelle Ritzer; Kevin Last Name Unknown lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis _ Submitted: October 17, 2018 Filed: October 24, 2018 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. In this
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 18-1344 _ Bennett-Charles Formanack lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Stillwater Towing Inc.; Richard J. Ritzer; Michelle Ritzer; Kevin Last Name Unknown lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis _ Submitted: October 17, 2018 Filed: October 24, 2018 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. In this ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 18-1344
___________________________
Bennett-Charles Formanack
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Stillwater Towing Inc.; Richard J. Ritzer; Michelle Ritzer; Kevin Last Name Unknown
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
____________
Submitted: October 17, 2018
Filed: October 24, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In this diversity action, Bennett-Charles Formanack seeks to appeal after the
district court1 dismissed his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and
1
The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
denied his postjudgment motions. After careful review, we dismiss the appeal for
lack of appellate jurisdiction, because Formanack’s notice of appeal did not designate
the order, judgment, or part thereof that he was appealing. See Fed. R. App. P.
3(c)(1)(B) (notice of appeal must designate judgment, order, or part thereof being
appealed); Smith v. Barry,
502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992) (Rule 3 requirements are
jurisdictional). We also deny as moot Formanack’s pending motion to suppress.
______________________________
-2-