Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02321/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02321-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jon Bruning
Appellee
Doug Christiansen
Appellee
Department of Education
Appellee
Does
Appellee
Lynn Fritz
Appellee
Daniel A.D. Gossai
Appellant
Leslie Levy
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2321

___________

Daniel A.D. Gossai, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Jon Bruning, Attorney General for the * Appeal from the United States

State of Nebraska, in his official and * District Court for the

individual capacity; Lynn Fritz, in his * District of Nebraska.

official and individual capacity; *

Department of Education, State of * [UNPUBLISHED]

Nebraska; Doug Christiansen, *

Commissioner of Education, State of *

Nebraska, in his official and individual *

capacity; Leslie Levy, in his official *

and individual capacity; Does 1 through *

20, Inclusive, in their official and *

individual capacities, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 7, 2007

Filed: June 13, 2007

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 06-2321 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2007 Entry ID: 3318993
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

-2-

Daniel Gossai appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the Nebraska Attorney General and

other Nebraska officials. Upon careful de novo review, see Robinette v. Jones, 476

F.3d 585, 588-90 (8th Cir. 2007), and for reasons stated by the district court, we

affirm the dismissal with prejudice of Gossai’s first through fifth claims, and the

dismissal without prejudice of his sixth claim. We further hold that the district court

did not abuse its discretion in partially denying Gossai’s motion to amend the

complaint. See United States ex rel. Joshi v. St. Luke’s Hosp., Inc., 441 F.3d 552,

555, 557-59 (8th Cir.) (denial of motion to amend complaint reviewed for abuse of

discretion; affirming denial of motion to amend on basis of futility where proposed

amendments would not have eliminated complaint’s deficiencies), cert. denied, 127

S. Ct. 189 (2006).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2321 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2007 Entry ID: 3318993