Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02712/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02712-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gerald C. Derby
Appellee
William Scott Power
Appellee
Daniel P. Wilson
Appellee
James B. Winke
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2712

___________

James B. Winke, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Gerald C. Derby, acting as Temporary * Southern District of Iowa

Receiver of Progas Service, Inc.; *

William Scott Power, attorney who *

claims to have been counsel for Progas * [UNPUBLISHED]

Service, Inc.; Daniel P. Wilson, Judge *

for Eighth Judicial District of Iowa in *

and for Lee County at Fort Madison, *

IA, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 27, 2005

Filed: May 18, 2005 

___________

Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 04-2712 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/18/2005 Entry ID: 1904030
1

The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

-2-

James Winke appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

 for

the Southern District of Iowa dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. For

reversal, he argues that the district court should have allowed him to amend his

complaint. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district

court.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a postdismissal

motion to amend, see Niagara of Wis. Paper Corp. v. Paper Indus. Union-Mgmt.

Pension Fund, 800 F.2d 742, 749 (8th Cir. 1986), and we find no abuse of discretion

here. The conduct alleged in Winke’s initial complaint did not amount to the

violation of a constitutional or federal right for purposes of section 1983, and

Winke’s proposed amended complaint did not cure this defect. See Holloway v.

Dobbs, 715 F.2d 390, 392 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (district court is justified in

denying motion to amend where amended complaint could not survive motion to

dismiss).

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

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2712 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/18/2005 Entry ID: 1904030