Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Bennett-Charles Formanack v. Stillwater Towing Inc., 18-1344 (2018)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 18-1344 Visitors: 50
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District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis _ Submitted: October 17, 2018 Filed: October 24, 2018 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.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
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                                  [Unpublished]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-

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer