Case ID: f-appx_673/html/0609-01.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

Kenneth M. NJEMA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-1435
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: January 5, 2017
    Filed: January 26, 2017
    
      Kenneth M. Njema, Pro Se
    ' Jessica Z. Savran, Charles F. Webber, Faegre & Baker, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before COLLOTON, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In this action challenging the foreclosure of his home, Kenneth Njema appeals after the district court entered summary judgment against him on his claims of breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, wrongful foreclosure, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and dismissed his remaining trespass claim without prejudice, for failure to prosecute.

Following a careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we agree with the district court’s disposition of Njema’s claims. See Burger v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 822 F.3d 445, 447 (8th Cir. 2016) (summary judgment decisions are reviewed de novo); Lexington Ins. Co. v. Integrity Land Title Co., Inc., 721 F.3d 958, 968 (8th Cir. 2013) (stay-related rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion); Fleming v. Harris, 39 F.3d 905, 908 (8th Cir. 1994) (rulings related to requests by counsel to withdraw are reviewed for abuse of discretion).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
      . The Honorable Patrick J. Schütz, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Janie S. Mayeron, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
     
      
      . We decline to consider points that Njema mentions on appeal, but does not meaningfully argue in his opening brief, see Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 638 (8th Cir. 2007); French v. Beard, 993 F.2d 160, 161 (8th Cir. 1993), and arguments that he asserts on appeal, but did not properly present in the summary judgment proceedings, see B.M. ex rel. Miller v. S. Callaway R-II Sch. Dist., 732 F.3d 882, 887 (8th Cir. 2013).