The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
18-2904•John M. Carter, and on behalf of others Similarly situated v. William Muldoon, individual capacity
18-2904Court of Appeals for the Eighth CircuitOct 31, 2019
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 19-1019
___________________________
John M. Carter, and on behalf of others Similarly situated
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
William Muldoon, individual capacity; Dave Stolz, individual capacity; Nebraska
Law Enforcement Training Center; Does 1-25 inclusive
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska - Omaha
____________
Submitted: October 11, 2019
Filed: October 18, 2019
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, WOLLMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In this civil rights action, John M. Carter appeals following the district court’s1
adverse grant of summary judgment. Viewing the record in a light most favorable to
The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the1
District of Nebraska.
-- 1 of 2 --
Carter, we find that the district court properly granted summary judgment to
defendants William Muldoon and Dave Stolz in their individual capacities based on
a determination that they were entitled to qualified immunity. See Clark v. Clark, 926
F.3d 972, 977 (8th Cir. 2019) (de novo review). We also find no abuse of discretion
in the district court’s denial of Carter’s motion for recusal. See Fletcher v. Conoco
Pipe Line Co., 323 F.3d 661, 664 (8th Cir. 2003) (judge is presumed impartial, and
party seeking recusal bears substantial burden of showing otherwise); Moran v.
Clarke, 296 F.3d 638, 648 (8th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (standard of review). The
judgment is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B; and Carter’s motion to supplement the
record is denied.
______________________________
-2-
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.