Natalie Johnson-Lee v. City of Minneapolis

Mar 3, 2006

04-4203

Versions:170 F. App'x 15

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Paul Culbreath appeals the district court‘s¹ adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against defendants. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. FAG Bearings Corp., 335 F.3d 752, 757 (8th Cir.2003) (de novo standard of review), we agree with the district court that Culbreath is collaterally estopped from bringing his claim, for the reasons explained in the district court‘s opinion. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Paul A. Culbreath, Jonesboro, AR, Pro Se.

Robert Lee Henry, III, Barber & McCaskill, Little Rock, AR, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before MELLOY, FAGG, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Paul Culbreath appeals the district court‘s¹ adverse grant of summary judgment in his civil action against Carl Dwayne Plumlee. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Madewell v. Downs, 68 F.3d 1030, 1036 (8th Cir.1995) (de novo standard of review), we agree with the district court that Culbreath‘s allegations were either time-barred or meritless, for the reasons explained in the district court‘s opinion. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Larry B. Leventhal, Randall Morris, David L. Garelick, Leventhal & Associates, Michael C. Hager, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Clifford M. Greene, Kevin G. Ross, Pamela Lee Vanderwiel, Greene & Espel, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendants-Appellee.

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs appeal the district court‘s¹ grant of summary judgment dismissing their claims against the City of Minneapolis alleging its Redistricting Commission‘s Redistricting Plan violated various provisions of Minneapolis‘s City Charter as well as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 1973-1973p); 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions de novo, Lerohl v. Friends of Minn. Sinfonia, 322 F.3d 486, 488 (8th Cir.2003), we conclude an extensive discussion is not warranted. The district court has provided a comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion addressing the issues raised by the parties, and we have nothing to add to the analysis. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court for the reason‘s stated in its memorandum opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

Notes

The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The Honorable John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.