Filed: Feb. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-2504 _ Frederick L. Pitchford lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Joseph Boeckmann; Fred Thorne; David Henry Lofton; Jerry Eaves lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro _ Submitted: February 14, 2018 Filed: February 28, 2018 [Unpublished] _ Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Frederick L. Pitchfor
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 17-2504 _ Frederick L. Pitchford lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Joseph Boeckmann; Fred Thorne; David Henry Lofton; Jerry Eaves lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro _ Submitted: February 14, 2018 Filed: February 28, 2018 [Unpublished] _ Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Frederick L. Pitchford..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-2504
___________________________
Frederick L. Pitchford
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Joseph Boeckmann; Fred Thorne; David Henry Lofton; Jerry Eaves
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro
____________
Submitted: February 14, 2018
Filed: February 28, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Frederick L. Pitchford appeals the district court’s1 dismissal, without prejudice,
of his pro se complaint. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court
affirms.
1
The Honorable D. P. Marshall, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
Upon de novo review of Pitchford’s appellate arguments and the district court
record, this court finds no basis for reversal. See Moore v. Sims,
200 F.3d 1170 (8th
Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (pre-service dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) is
reviewed de novo).
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-