Filed: Oct. 07, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 08-1799 _ Patricia Thomas, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the MO Jackson County, * Western District of Missouri. * Defendant, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Circuit Court of Jackson County, * Missouri, and all judges of the Circuit * Court; State of Missouri, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: September 8, 2009 Filed: October 7, 2009 _ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Patrici
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 08-1799 _ Patricia Thomas, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the MO Jackson County, * Western District of Missouri. * Defendant, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Circuit Court of Jackson County, * Missouri, and all judges of the Circuit * Court; State of Missouri, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: September 8, 2009 Filed: October 7, 2009 _ Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Patricia..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-1799
___________
Patricia Thomas, *
*
Appellant, *
*
v. * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
MO Jackson County, * Western District of Missouri.
*
Defendant, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Circuit Court of Jackson County, *
Missouri, and all judges of the Circuit *
Court; State of Missouri, *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: September 8, 2009
Filed: October 7, 2009
___________
Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Patricia Thomas appeals the district court’s1 dismissal without prejudice of her
civil rights action and denial of her motion for default judgment. After careful review,
1
The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
we conclude that Thomas did not properly serve defendants, and that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants’ motion to dismiss on that basis.
See Marshall v. Warwick,
155 F.3d 1027, 1030 (8th Cir. 1998) (standards of review);
see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d), (e), (m); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 506.150.4. In addition, we find
no abuse of discretion in the denial of default judgment. See Norsyn, Inc. v. Desai,
351 F.3d 825, 830 (8th Cir. 2003) (court did not abuse its discretion in denying
plaintiff’s motion for default judgment where defendants were never properly served,
and thus had no obligation to file answer).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-