Eric Garland v. Hon. Mary Bruntrager Schroeder, in her individual capacity

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1698
___________________________
Eric Garland
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Hon. Mary Bruntrager Schroeder, in her individual capacity; Hon. John R. Lasater,
in his individual capacity; David Q. Betz, Esq.; Dr. Dean L. Rosen, in his
individual capacity; Dr. Anthony J. Castro; Anthony J. Stemmler, in his individual
capacity; Joan M. Gilmer, in her individual capacity
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
____________
Submitted: October 11, 2024
Filed: December 11, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 2 --

Eric Garland appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his pro se civil rights
action involving state child custody proceedings and denial of his first motion for
leave to file an amended complaint.2 Having carefully reviewed the record and the
parties’ arguments on appeal, we affirm. See Duffner v. City of St. Peters, 930 F.3d
973, 976 (8th Cir. 2019) (“We may affirm on any ground supported by the record.”);
Knutson v. City of Fargo, 600 F.3d 992, 995 (8th Cir. 2010) (legal conclusions
regarding district court’s subject matter jurisdiction are reviewed de novo); Amrine
v. Brooks, 522 F.3d 823, 833 (8th Cir. 2008) (review of denial of motion for leave to
file amended complaint is for abuse of discretion, but futility finding is reviewed de
novo). Because the district court had jurisdiction to review this matter, we modify
the dismissal to be with prejudice. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
1The Honorable Sarah E. Pitlyk, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
2As Garland does not address the denial of his second motion for leave to file
an amended complaint, any arguments regarding the denial are waived. See Hess v.
Ables, 714 F.3d 1048, 1051 n.2 (8th Cir. 2013) (claims not briefed on appeal are
waived).
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --