Case ID: f-appx_310/html/0066-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hollis J. LARSON, Appellant, v. David CRIST; David Corbo; Pat Lais; Michael Seath; Ronald Schwindel; John Doe; Jeffrey White; Eric Hennen; John Sofie; Chris Chute; Athanasios Chronakos; Jessica Serowiecki; Michael Spah; Suzette Borst; Harley Nelson; Cari Gerlicher; Monica Lais; T. Boone, Appellees.
    No. 07-3508.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 22, 2009.
    Filed: Jan. 28, 2009.
    Hollis J. Larson, Rush City, MN, pro se.
    Warden-MN, Minnesota Department of Corrections, StillwateR, MN, for Hollis J. Larson.
    Kelly Susan Kemp, Mark Bernard Lev-inger, Attorney General’s Office, St. Paul, MN, for Appellees.
    Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Minnesota inmate Hollis Larson appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and the denial of his motion for default judgment. Following careful review of the record and the briefs, see Johnson v. Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir.2006) (grant of summary judgment reviewed de novo); Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856 (8th Cir.1996) (denial of default judgment reviewed for abuse of discretion), we find no grounds for reversal, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Larson’s pending motions. 
      
      . The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Arthur J. Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
     
      
      . In his notice of appeal, Larson designates for appeal various other rulings by the district court but he does not raise any of these matters in his opening brief. See Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 634 (8th Cir.2007) (points not meaningfully argued in opening brief are deemed waived).