Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02144/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02144-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2144

___________

Stephen Walter Solors, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Jim Warta; Jim Chamberlin; Keith *

Pohl; Gregory Verkuilen; Julie Olson; *

Lisa Woog; Aaron Patrick; Keith *

Haggestad; Donald F. Ryan; John J. * [UNPUBLISHED]

Sausen, Assistant County Attorney; *

Rockwell J. Wells; Tim Pickar; Lori *

Swanson; Lyman Whitney, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 22, 2010

Filed: February 25, 2010

___________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 09-2144 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/25/2010 Entry ID: 3638196
1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Raymond

L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

Stephen Solors appeals from the judgment of the District Court1

 dismissing his

civil rights action against individuals who allegedly interfered with a driveway

construction project on his land. Following careful review, we conclude that the

District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Solors’s claims based on

abstention principles. See Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar

Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982) (noting that Supreme Court precedents "espouse a

strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial

proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances"); see also Norwood v. Dickey, 409

F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review); State v. Solors, No. A09-127,

2010 WL 10381 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2010) (unpublished) (appeal from the state

proceeding against Solors). We also agree with the District Court that Solors failed

to state a claim. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (holding

that district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' restraint-of-trade complaint because

their claim was not plausible on its face); Levy v. Ohl, 477 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir.

2007) (de novo standard of review). Finally, the District Court did not abuse its

discretion in denying Solors’s motions for a default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(a)(4)(A) (extending the time for serving a responsive pleading while a motion is

pending in the district court); Norsyn, Inc. v. Desai, 351 F.3d 825, 828 (8th Cir. 2003)

(standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2144 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/25/2010 Entry ID: 3638196