Case ID: sw3d_447/html/0737-01.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

Ronald KIPPENBERGER, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. WALGREEN COMPANY, et al, Defendant/Respondent.
    No. ED 100420.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
    Aug. 26, 2014.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 2, 2014.
    Application for Transfer Denied Nov. 25, 2014.
    J. Richard McEachern, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
    Teresa M. Young, Justin S. Chapell— Co-Counsel, Brown & James, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
    Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and PHILIP M. HESS, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ronald Kippenberger (Plaintiff) appeals the circuit court’s judgment denying Plaintiffs motion for a continuance and dismissing his personal injury claim with prejudice against Walgreen Company (Defendant). On appeal, Plaintiff claims that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a continuance and dismissing his claim because the circuit court ignored that Plaintiff’s counsel’s physical ailments necessitated the continuance. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).