Filed: Jul. 12, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-3814 _ Marvin Douglas Sundquist lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. State of Nebraska; Nebraska Attorney General’s Office; Ed Vierk, Assistant Nebraska Attorney General; Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services; Ruth Schuldt, Probation Compliance Monitor; Douglas J. Peterson; Courtney Phillips lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omah
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 16-3814 _ Marvin Douglas Sundquist lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. State of Nebraska; Nebraska Attorney General’s Office; Ed Vierk, Assistant Nebraska Attorney General; Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services; Ruth Schuldt, Probation Compliance Monitor; Douglas J. Peterson; Courtney Phillips lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 16-3814
___________________________
Marvin Douglas Sundquist
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
State of Nebraska; Nebraska Attorney General’s Office; Ed Vierk, Assistant
Nebraska Attorney General; Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services;
Ruth Schuldt, Probation Compliance Monitor; Douglas J. Peterson; Courtney Phillips
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
____________
Submitted: June 28, 2017
Filed: July 12, 2017
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Marvin Sundquist appeals from the adverse judgment the district court1 entered
in his action asserting a deprivation of his rights while he was in the process of
seeking, and ultimately obtaining, a license from the State of Nebraska to practice
massage therapy. He challenges the denial of a motion to amend his complaint and
the adverse grant of summary judgment.
We first conclude that the denial of Sundquist’s motion to amend was not an
abuse of discretion. See Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs.,
512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir.
2008) (noting that decisions regarding a plaintiff’s motion to amend its complaint are
reviewed for abuse of discretion). We further conclude that summary judgment was
appropriately granted for the reasons stated by the district court. See Beaulieu v.
Ludeman,
690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (explaining that a grant of summary
judgment is reviewed de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to
nonmovant). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1
The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska.
-2-