Case ID: f-appx_138/html/0873-01.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

THE SOCIETY OF LLOYD’S, Appellee, v. Robert W. FUERST; Hord Hardin, Defendants, Harold F. Ilg, Appellant, Walter A. Klein; Meade M. McCain; John J. Shillington; Cynthia J. Todorovich; Michael B. Todorovich, Defendants.
    No. 04-2964.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 5, 2005.
    Decided: July 11, 2005.
    Michael A. Clithero, R. Prescott Sifton, Jr., Blackwell & Sanders, Martin J. Buckley, David S. Davis, Buckley & Buckley, St. Louis, MO, Blake T. Hannafan, Michael T. Hannafan, Nicholas A. Pavich, Hanna-fan & Associates, Chicago, IL, for Appellee.
    Harold F. Ilg, Naples, FL, pro se.
    Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
   [UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Harold F. Ilg appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in a diversity action brought by The Society of Lloyd’s seeking recognition and enforcement of a foreign money judgment. For reversal, he argues that the district court’s handling of this case violated his due process rights. We have carefully reviewed the record, see Royal v. Kautzky, 375 F.3d 720, 722 (8th Cir.2004) (reviewing de novo claims of constitutional error), cert. denied,— U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 2528,—L.Ed.2d-(2005), and we find no basis for concluding that Ilg’s due process rights were violated by the district court, see Herts v. Smith, 345 F.3d 581, 587 (8th Cir.2003) (due process generally requires adequate notice and opportunity to be heard at meaningful time and in meaningful manner). Further, the undisputed evidence established that summary judgment was properly granted against Ilg. See Mo. Rev.Stat. §§ 511.770-787 (2000) (Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act); United States v. One Parcel of Real Property, Located at 9638 Chicago Heights, St. Louis, Mo., 27 F.3d 327, 329 n. 1 (8th Cir.1994) (failure to respond to summary judgment motion does not automatically compel resolution in favor of moving party; reviewing court must still determine whether entry of summary judgment was appropriate).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny as moot Ilg’s pending motion. 
      
      . The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.