Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

878 F.3d 630

Docket No. 17-1823

Steckelberg v. Rice

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Filed: December 26, 2017

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied February 16, 2018*

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 2017-12-26

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 2018

1 district ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Applies NE 48 § 48-217

Relies on Kruger v. Nebraska

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 2017-12-26

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Joy Shiffermiller, Shiffermiller Law Office P.C. L.L.O., Lincoln, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

¶2Stephanie Anne Caldwell, David A. Lopez, Assistant Attorneys General, Attorney General’s Office, Lincoln, 'NE, for Defendants-Appellees.

¶3Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6The district court1 dismissed Todd Steckelberg’s complaints ■ for failure to state a claim. Steckelberg v. Rice, 184 F.Supp.3d 746, 759 (D. Neb. 2016), incor*631porated in Order, No. 4:15-CV-3069 (D. Neb. Mar. 24, 2017) (Doc. No. 23). He appeals. After reviewing the record and arguments for reversal, this court concludes that dismissal was proper. See Kruger v. Nebraska, 820 F.3d 295, 301 (8th Cir. 2016) (de novo review). As the district court ruled in its thorough and well-reasoned opinions, the complaints fail to state a claim under federal or Nebraska law: See Steckelberg, 184 F.Supp.3d at 754-59 and Order at 2-5, discussing U.S Const, amends. I, XIV; 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(2); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-217; Neb. Const, art. XV, § 13. Further discussion would have no precedential value. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

/878/f3d/630 · .json · Public domain