Filed: Aug. 28, 2020
Latest Update: Aug. 28, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 20-1455 _ Larry W. Rader lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Ally Financial, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota _ Submitted: August 25, 2020 Filed: August 28, 2020 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Larry Rader appeals after the district court1 dismissed his case for lack of subject matter jurisdic
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 20-1455 _ Larry W. Rader lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Ally Financial, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee _ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota _ Submitted: August 25, 2020 Filed: August 28, 2020 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Larry Rader appeals after the district court1 dismissed his case for lack of subject matter jurisdict..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 20-1455
___________________________
Larry W. Rader
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Ally Financial, Inc.
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: August 25, 2020
Filed: August 28, 2020
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Larry Rader appeals after the district court1 dismissed his case for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that
1
The Honorable Nancy E. Brasel, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Tony N.
Leung, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
Rader failed to establish either diversity or federal question jurisdiction. See Midland
Psychiatric Assocs. v. United States,
145 F.3d 1000, 1002 (8th Cir. 1998) (reviewing
the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo). Additionally, we find
no merit to Rader’s argument that the district court abused its discretion in denying
his motion to compel. See Toben v. Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC,
751 F.3d
888, 895 (8th Cir. 2014) (stating that district courts have wide discretion in handling
discovery matters). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-