Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01729/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01729-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Mexico
Appellee
Danny G. Goe
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-1729

___________

Danny G. Goe, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

City of Mexico, Missouri, a municipal *

corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: February 7, 2007

Filed: February 14, 2007

___________

Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Danny G. Goe appeals from the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his civil rights action against the City of Mexico, Missouri (City). Upon

de novo review, see Hutson v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 63 F.3d 771, 775 (8th Cir.

1995), we affirm.

Appellate Case: 06-1729 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2007 Entry ID: 3278657
2

In addition, Goe’s brief on appeal does not comply with the Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure because neither the statement of facts nor the argument section

contains any citations to the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(7) (statement of facts

must cite to the record), 28(a)(9) (argument must cite to authorities and record). 

-2-

The City condemned and destroyed a mobile home owned by Goe in December

1999 for building code violations. Goe sued the City alleging violations of his equal

protection and due process rights. The district court properly granted summary

judgment on the equal protection claim because the only relevant evidence in the

record was the affidavit of the City Manager, who declared that the City treated all

property owners alike. Goe neither opposed the City’s motion nor sought permission

to conduct additional discovery. See Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1238 (8th

Cir. 1997) (where shelter is not sought under Rule 56(f), a court may properly grant

summary judgment on the record before it).2

 Goe has waived any challenge he may

have to the dismissal of his due process claim by failing to brief the issue. See

Milligan v. City of Red Oak, Iowa, 230 F.3d 355, 360 (8th Cir. 2000) (assertion of

error is waived unless supported by argument and legal authority). In any event,

evidence in the record established that the City satisfied Goe’s right to due process by

sending six written deficiency notices which informed him of the building code

violations and by providing him an opportunity to appeal those notices. See Samuels

v. Meriwether, 94 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (8th Cir. 1996) (written notice and opportunity

to appear before the proper municipal body satisfies due process requirements).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1729 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/14/2007 Entry ID: 3278657