Susan Lloyd v. TD Bank USA NA CO Target Enterprise Inc.; Target Corporation

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3079
___________________________
Susan Lloyd
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
TD Bank USA NA CO Target Enterprise Inc.; Target Corporation
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: February 15, 2024
Filed: February 21, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Pennsylvania resident Susan Lloyd appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of her
pro se civil complaint asserting claims of discrimination under the Americans with
1The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.

-- 1 of 2 --

Disabilities Act (ADA) against Target Corporation, as well as federal and state claims
related to debt collection. She also challenges the district court’s denial of her motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint.
After careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion
in dismissing Lloyd’s ADA claim without prejudice because it was misjoined. See
Stephens v. Does, 777 Fed. Appx. 176, 177 (8th Cir. 2019) (unpublished per curiam)
(standard of review). We also conclude the district court did not err in dismissing her
remaining federal and state claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
See Christopherson v. Bushner, 33 F.4th 495, 499 (8th Cir. 2022) (standard of
review). Finally, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Lloyd leave to file her second amended complaint. See In re 2007 Novastar Fin. Inc.,
Sec. Lit., 579 F.3d 878, 884-85 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); Knowles v. TD
Ameritrade Holding Corp., 2 F.4th 751, 758 (8th Cir. 2021) (affirming denial of leave
to amend and with-prejudice dismissal where, despite previous amendments, plaintiff
unable to plead adequate claim).
The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --