Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02897/USCOURTS-ca8-14-02897-0/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. 14-2897

___________________________

Kalvin M. Loyd; Patricia Loyd

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants

Kaltrice Loyd; Patrick Loyd, by and through Next Friend Patricia Thomas Loyd.;

Jarvis M. Loyd, by and through Next Friend Patricia Thomas Loyd.; Patrice M.

Loyd, by and through Next Friend Patricia Thomas Loyd.; Patricia A. Loyd, by

and through Next Friend Patricia Thomas Loyd.

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs

v.

James Corwin; Chief Darryl Forte

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

City of Kansas City, Missouri

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

Board of Police Commissioners; Charles Huth; Robert Richardson; Barry Nolan;

Chad Fenwick; Mary Bickford; Joseph Daneff; Scott A. Selock; Chad E. Safranek;

Garrett D. Polich; Douglas G. Silk; Guy E. Kirtley; Keith M. Ericsson; Eric J.

Roeder; Robert E. Browning, Jr.; Granvel E. Greenwell; Michael L. Glass; Justin

E. Crump; Owen Farris; Larry Weinhold; Robert Evans; Aaron Hendershot; John

Keil; Robert Wisdom; Kip Akerson; Richard R. Buente, #3061; Michael Miller,

#4024; Richard Dyer

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appellate Case: 14-2897 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Entry ID: 4350853 
Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

 Submitted: December 28, 2015

Filed: December 30, 2015

____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

In this properly removed action, Kalvin and Patricia Loyd appeal after the

district court dismissed their civil rights complaint, without prejudice, for failure to 1

prosecute. Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in dismissing the complaint. See Garland v. Peebles, 1 F.3d 683, 686 (8th

Cir. 1993) (dismissal for failure to prosecute is reviewed for abuse of discretion;

dismissal is proper when there has been clear record of delay by plaintiff). We

additionally conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the

Loyds’ motion for appointment of counsel. See Phillips v. Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d

791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (denial of motion for appointment of counsel isreviewed for

abuse of discretion; discussing relevant factors).

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

______________________________

The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States DistrictJudge for the Western 1

District of Missouri.

-2-

Appellate Case: 14-2897 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2015 Entry ID: 4350853