Filed: Mar. 06, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 06, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 19-2469 _ Eric D. Lougin; Francesco R. Russo lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants v. City of St. Louis, Missouri; Grand Center, Inc.; Freddie Dunlap, in his official and individual capacity; John Does, 1-4, in their official capacity; Chris Roth, in his official and individual capacity; Rick Lauman, in his official capacity; Shawn Ordway, in his official capacity; Claudia Roe, in her official capacity; St. Louis City Board of Eq
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 19-2469 _ Eric D. Lougin; Francesco R. Russo lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants v. City of St. Louis, Missouri; Grand Center, Inc.; Freddie Dunlap, in his official and individual capacity; John Does, 1-4, in their official capacity; Chris Roth, in his official and individual capacity; Rick Lauman, in his official capacity; Shawn Ordway, in his official capacity; Claudia Roe, in her official capacity; St. Louis City Board of Equ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 19-2469
___________________________
Eric D. Lougin; Francesco R. Russo
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants
v.
City of St. Louis, Missouri; Grand Center, Inc.; Freddie Dunlap, in his official and
individual capacity; John Does, 1-4, in their official capacity; Chris Roth, in his
official and individual capacity; Rick Lauman, in his official capacity; Shawn
Ordway, in his official capacity; Claudia Roe, in her official capacity; St. Louis
City Board of Equalization, City of Saint Louis Assessor President of the BOE
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: February 26, 2020
Filed: March 6, 2020
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Eric Lougin and Francesco Russo appeal the district court’s order in their pro
se complaint raising claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, as well as state law,
in which the district court dismissed the federal claims and remanded the state law
claims to state court. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments
on appeal, we conclude the court properly dismissed the federal claims. See
Plymouth Cty. v. Merscorp, Inc.,
774 F.3d 1155, 1158 (8th Cir. 2014) (de novo
review of dismissal order). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed as to the dismissal
of the federal claims. We vacate the order remanding the state law claims to state
court, however, as the case did not originate in state court; and we instruct the district
court to enter an order dismissing the state law claims without prejudice.
______________________________
-2-