Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03876/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03876-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3876

___________

Mary Bower, next friend; *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

*

Ariel Bower, Minor; *

Gabrielle N. Lyon, Minor, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

Plaintiffs, * District of Missouri.

*

v. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Springfield R-12 School District; *

Charrie Dixon; Janis Duncan; Jane *

Hancock; Susan Provance; School *

Board of Springfield, *

*

Defendants-Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 07, 2008

Filed: February 13, 2008

___________

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 06-3876 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2008 Entry ID: 3402154
1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-

Mary Bower appeals the district court’s1

 grant of summary judgment to

defendants in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of her First Amendment

right to free speech, and defamation under state law. Bower also appeals the denial

of her motion for appointed counsel, and the dismissal of her children as plaintiffs.

After careful review of the record, we find no error in the district court’s grant

of summary judgment, see Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir. 1997)

(standard of review), and nothing to support Bower’s contention that the district court

judge should have recused himself, see 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) (judge is required to

disqualify himself in proceedings in which his impartiality might reasonably be

questioned). We also find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

Bower’s motion for appointed counsel. See Butler v. Fletcher 465 F.3d 340, 346 (8th

Cir. 2006) (standard of review). Thus, the district court did not err in dismissing the

claims of Bower’s minor children, as Bower was unable to represent them pro se, see

Myers v. Loudoun County Pub. Schs., 418 F.3d 395, 401 (4th Cir. 2005), but those

claims should have been dismissed without prejudice.

Accordingly, we affirm, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, but we modify the dismissal of the

claims of Bower’s minor children to be without prejudice.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3876 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/13/2008 Entry ID: 3402154