Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01284/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01284-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

Ed Schafer has been appointed to serve as the Secretary of the United States

Department of Agriculture, and is substituted as an appellee pursuant to Federal Rule

of Appellate Procedure 43(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1284

___________

James Widtfeldt; James Widtfeldt *

Trust, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Ed Schafer,1

 in his capacity as Secretary *

of the United States Department of * [UNPUBLISHED]

Agriculture; United States Department *

of Agriculture; Monte Fletcher, in his *

official capacity as Holt County *

Executive Director of the United States *

Farm Service Agency, an Agency of *

the United States Department of *

Agriculture; Richard Kilmurry; Bonny *

Kilmurry; Hilger Brothers Partnerships; *

Gary A. Burival; Joyce A. Burival; *

Edwin Burival, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 29, 2008

Filed: September 4, 2008

___________

Appellate Case: 07-1284 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/04/2008 Entry ID: 3467204
2

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

-2-

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James Widtfeldt appeals the district court’s2

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in this action for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) & (2), challenging an order of the United

States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which found him ineligible for federal

farm subsidies for the years 2000 and 2001 and required him to refund approximately

$29,000 in payments he received for those years. Upon de novo review, we agree

with the district court that the USDA’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse

of discretion, or otherwise inconsistent with the law. See Voyageurs Nat’l Park Ass’n

v. Norton, 381 F.3d 759, 763 (8th Cir. 2004) (appellate standard of review and

applicable legal standard under APA). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court

is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1284 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/04/2008 Entry ID: 3467204