Jeremy Dunn; Kevin Love v. Shane Penfield, in his official

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1804
___________________________
Jeremy Dunn; Kevin Love
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants
v.
Shane Penfield, in his official and individual capacities; Penfield Law Firm
Professional LLC; Marty Jackley, in his individual capacity; Matthew Barnes, in
his individual and official capacity as Mayor of the City of Lemmon; Thomas
Frieberg, in his individual capacity; City of Lemmon, SD; City of Dupree, SD;
Town of Bison, SD; City of McLaughlin, SD; City of McIntosh, SD; City of
Timber Lake, SD; Corson County, SD; Dewey County, SD; Ziebach County, SD;
Unknown Individual Officers, Agents, and Directors, in their individual and/or
official capacities; Perkins County, SD; City of Faith, SD
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota
____________
Submitted: December 19, 2024
Filed: December 24, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 2 --

South Dakota residents Jeremy Dunn and Kevin Love appeal the dismissal of
their pro se civil rights and antitrust action against numerous municipalities and
government officials. They also challenge the district court’s1 denial of their motion
to amend the complaint and file a third amended complaint.
Upon careful review, we find no basis to reverse the dismissal, see Tholen v.
Assist Am., Inc., 970 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir. 2020) (appellate court reviews grant of
motion to dismiss de novo); and we also conclude that the district court did not err
in denying the motion to amend the complaint as futile, see Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v.
City of Richmond Heights, 92 F.4th 763, 769 (8th Cir. 2024) (denial of leave to
amend complaint is generally reviewed under abuse of discretion standard, but
appellate court reviews legal conclusions de novo when district court bases denial on
futility of proposed amendments).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also deny the
pending appellate motions.
______________________________
1The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District
of South Dakota.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --