Filed: Oct. 05, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 08-3340 _ Frederick L. Pitchford, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Southland Gaming and Racing; Barry * Baldwin; Therrin Protze; Troy * [UNPUBLISHED] Keeping, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: September 23, 2009 Filed: October 5, 2009 _ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Frederick Lee Pitchford appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of hi
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 08-3340 _ Frederick L. Pitchford, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Southland Gaming and Racing; Barry * Baldwin; Therrin Protze; Troy * [UNPUBLISHED] Keeping, * * Appellees. * _ Submitted: September 23, 2009 Filed: October 5, 2009 _ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Frederick Lee Pitchford appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-3340
___________
Frederick L. Pitchford, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Arkansas.
Southland Gaming and Racing; Barry *
Baldwin; Therrin Protze; Troy * [UNPUBLISHED]
Keeping, *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: September 23, 2009
Filed: October 5, 2009
___________
Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Frederick Lee Pitchford appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his
employment discrimination complaint. Pitchford’s only argument in his brief on
appeal is that the district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion to dismiss,
because he failed to pay the filing fee below. This argument fails. See Rodgers ex rel.
1
The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.
Jones v. Bowen,
790 F.2d 1550, 1552 (11th Cir. 1986) (noting that court had expressly
rejected theory that timely payment of filing fee is jurisdictional requirement).
Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny the pending motion to vacate.
______________________________
-2-