Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02451/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02451-0/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

___________

Nos. 06-1511/2451

___________

Alan R. Vaughn, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeals from the United States

* District Court for the

Richard Swatek; Curtis D. Foss; Myron * District of Minnesota.

Choquette, VFW Post # 2948 *

Quartermaster; Merchants Bank, N.A.; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Jennifer Hasbargen, Koochiching * 

County Attorney; Carol Clauson, *

Koochiching County Court *

Administrator; Charles H. Ledue, *

Ninth Judicial District Court Judge; *

Donald J. Aandal, Ninth Judicial *

District Court Judge; Donna K. Dixon, *

Ninth Judicial District Court Judge; *

John P. Smith, Ninth Judicial District *

Court Judge; Martha Grimes, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: September 28, 2006

Filed: October 10, 2006

___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 06-2451 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/10/2006 Entry ID: 2097435
1The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, 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-

In this civil rights action brought by Alan Vaughn asserting defendants violated

his constitutional rights and participated in a broad conspiracy, Vaughn appeals the

district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment (No. 06-1511), and the court’s

subsequent order restricting Vaughn from filing future actions in the District of

Minnesota without prior court approval (No. 06-2451). Following careful review, we

affirm the grant of summary judgment, see Mettler v. Whitledge, 165 F.3d 1197,

1200, 1202 (8th Cir. 1999) (summary judgment standard of review), and we find no

abuse of discretion in the imposition of sanctions, see In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290,

1290-95 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (affirming district court’s decision to restrict

litigant’s future filings and endorsing its rationale that excessive litigation burdens

court resources and defendants, who have right to be free from harassing, abusive, and

meritless litigation). In both rulings, we agree with the thorough analysis provided by

the magistrate judge and adopted by the district court. 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2451 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/10/2006 Entry ID: 2097435