Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01148/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01148-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1148

___________

Ikechi Kallys Albert, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Sandy Larson, Program Director *

(Shadyview) in her individual capacity * [UNPUBLISHED]

and as an employee of Thomas Allen, *

Inc.; Fay Linscheid, Director, Human *

Resources, in her individual capacity *

and as an employee of Thomas Allen, *

Inc.; Sandy Quinn, Administrator, in *

her individual capacity and as an *

employee of Thomas Allen, Inc.; *

Thomas Allen Incorporated, *

*

Appellees, *

*

Minnesota Department of Employment *

and Economic Development, *

*

Defendant. *

___________

Submitted: July 6, 2007

 Filed: July 19, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

Appellate Case: 06-1148 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2007 Entry ID: 3331279
1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

-2-

PER CURIAM.

Ikechi Albert, a Nigerian-born immigrant, appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal

of his employment-discrimination suit. Albert claimed numerous federal and statelaw violations surrounding his dismissal from Thomas Allen, Inc. Having carefully

reviewed the record and all of Albert’s arguments on appeal, we conclude that the

district court committed no reversible error in dismissing Albert’s federal claims, see

Levy v. Ohl, 477 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir. 2007) (de novo standard of review), and did

not abuse its discretion in dismissing his state-law claims without prejudice, see

Labickas v. Ark. State Univ., 78 F.3d 333, 334-35 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam)

(following dismissal of federal claims, district court has discretion to dismiss state-law

claims, but dismissal should be without prejudice); and also did not abuse its

discretion in denying his pending motions.

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1148 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/19/2007 Entry ID: 3331279