Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02215/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02215-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gerald L. Brumley
Appellant
Garland County
Appellee
Larry Williams
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2215

___________

Gerald L. Brumley, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Garland County; Larry Williams, *

Individually, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 6, 2008

Filed: February 7, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gerald Brumley appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of the maintenance by Garland

County, Arkansas, of a road fronting his property. Upon de novo review, see Turner

v. Honeywell Fed. Mfg. & Tech., 336 F.3d 716, 719-20 (8th Cir. 2003), we conclude

that the district court properly determined that Brumley’s failure to pursue his statecourt remedies was fatal to his federal claims, see Cormack v. Settle-Beshears, 474

Appellate Case: 07-2215 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/07/2008 Entry ID: 3399792
-2-

F.3d 528, 531 (8th Cir. 2007) (federal courts are barred from considering merits of

takings claim until private litigant exhausts state remedies unless state’s remedies are

inadequate or unavailable; Arkansas’ inverse condemnation procedure provides

adequate mechanisms for its citizens to be justly compensated for takings), and

Brumley failed to establish a basis for holding the defendants liable, see Bd. of County

Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403-04 (1997) (plaintiff seeking to impose § 1983

liability on municipality must identify municipal policy or custom that caused his

injury).

To the extent that Brumley raised state-law claims, we modify the dismissal of

any such claims to be 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). As modified, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-2215 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/07/2008 Entry ID: 3399792