Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03462/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03462-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Karen Anderson
Appellee
Mike Babcock
Appellee
John Baldwin
Appellee
Tom Conley
Appellee
Fort Dodge Correctional Facility
Appellee
Cornell Smith
Appellee
Montollie Warren
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3462

___________

Montollie Warren, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern

* District of Iowa.

Fort Dodge Correctional Facility; *

Mike Babcock; Karen Anderson; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Cornell Smith; John Baldwin; *

Tom Conley, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 19, 2010

Filed: April 23, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Montollie Warren appeals the district court’s1

 order granting summary

judgment to Fort Dodge Correctional Facility (FDCF) and several prison officials, and

denying Warren’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) motion for a default

judgment, in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 

Appellate Case: 09-3462 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/23/2010 Entry ID: 3657791
-2-

Following careful de novo review, see Rouse v. Benson, 193 F.3d 936, 939 (8th

Cir. 1999), we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment,

and we also find no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of Warren’s motion for

a default judgment, see Crump v. Versa Prods., Inc., 400 F.3d 1104, 1110 (8th Cir.

2005) (standard of review for denial of Rule 37 motion for sanctions). Accordingly,

we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. However, we modify the dismissal of FDCF to be

with prejudice. See Monroe v. Ark. State Univ., 495 F.3d 591, 594 (8th Cir. 2007)

(Eleventh Amendment bars claims against state agencies for any kind of relief); Tex.

Cmty. Bank, N.A. v. Mo. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., Div. of Med. Servs., 232 F.3d 942, 943

(8th Cir. 2000) (where Eleventh Amendment barred suit, state agency was entitled to

dismissal with prejudice). 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3462 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/23/2010 Entry ID: 3657791