Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01278/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01278-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Dixon
Appellant
Fairbanks Capital Corporation
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1278

___________

Joseph Dixon, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Fairbanks Capital Corporation, sued as *

Fairbanks Capital Corp. Mortgage, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 7, 2005 

Filed: April 21, 2005 

___________

Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Dixon appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

in his lawsuit against Fairbanks Capital Corporation (FCC) arising from a threatened

property foreclosure. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Revels v. Vincenz,

382 F.3d 870, 874 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review), we affirm. 

Appellate Case: 05-1278 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2005 Entry ID: 1893840
-2-

Although we agree with Dixon that the instant complaint involves different

foreclosure proceedings than did the prior litigation between Dixon and FCC’s

predecessor, we nevertheless conclude that summary judgment was warranted. First,

Dixon provided nothing to counter the evidence offered by FCC, which supported the

challenged foreclosure proceedings. Further, Dixon’s numerous federal and state

claims arising from the threatened foreclosure are clearly meritless and do not warrant

extended discussion. See Manion v. Nagin, 394 F.3d 1062, 1070 (8th Cir. 2005) (this

court may affirm grant of summary judgment on any basis supported by record). 

We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of default

judgment. See Harris v. St. Louis Police Dept., 164 F.3d 1085, 1086 (8th Cir. 1998)

(per curiam) (standard of review). The remaining issues that Dixon lists in his

statement of issues for appeal provide no basis for reversal. 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Dixon’s pending

motions and decline to consider the new allegations he raises in his motion for

emergency relief. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004).

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1278 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2005 Entry ID: 1893840