Case ID: sw3d_449/html/0830-01.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

Samuel TAYLOR, Appellant, v. Dorrain JOHNSON, et al., Respondents.
    No. ED 101735
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.
    FILED: December 16, 2014
    Samuel Taylor Pro Se, 1115 E. Pence Road, Cameron, Missouri 64429, for appellant.
    Chris Koster, Philip Sholtz, P.O. Box 861, St. Louis, Missouri 63188, for respondent.
    Before Patricia L. Cohen, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Robert M. Clayton III, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM

Samuel Taylor (“Plaintiff’) appeals from the trial court’s judgment dismissing Plaintiffs “replevin” action against defendants Jason Crawford, Carl Gravett, Dor-rain Johnson, and Stanley Pruitt (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges a typewriter was damaged and postage went missing, but Plaintiff has failed to plead that Defendants are currently in possession of Plaintiff s property.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b)(2); Rule 29.15(k). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).