Case ID: f-appx_692/html/0800-02.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

Marvin Douglas SUNDQUIST Plaintiff-Appellant v. State of NEBRASKA; Nebraska Attorney General’s Office; Ed Vierk, Assistant Nebraska Attorney General; Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services; Ruth Schuldt, Probation Compliance Monitor; Douglas J. Peterson; Courtney Phillips Defendants-Appellees
    No. 16-3814
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 28, 2017
    Filed: July 12, 2017
    Marvin Douglas Sundquist, Pro Se
    Stephanie Anne. Caldwell, Assistant Attorney General, Kyle J. Citta, Jessica Forch, Attorney General’s Office, Lincoln, NE, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Marvin Sundquist appeals from the adverse judgment the district court entered in his action asserting a deprivation of his rights while he was in the process of seeking, and ultimately obtaining, a license from the State of Nebraska to practice massage therapy. He challenges the denial of a motion to amend his complaint and the adverse grant of summary judgment.

We first conclude that the denial of Sundquist’s motion to amend was not an abuse of discretion. See Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs., 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (noting that decisions regarding a plaintiffs motion to amend its complaint are reviewed for abuse of discretion). We further conclude that summary judgment was appropriately granted for the reasons stated by the district court. See Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (explaining that a grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to non-movant). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R, 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.