Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01109/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01109-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald Kakaygeesick
Appellant
Ken Salazar
Appellee
George Skibine
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the

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

Raymond L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1109

___________

Donald Kakaygeesick, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Ken Salazar, Secretary, United *

States Department of Interior; * [UNPUBLISHED]

George Skibine, Secretary of the *

Bureau of Indian Affairs, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 5, 2010

Filed: August 12, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Donald Kakaygeesick appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his action under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Having

carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the November 2007 order of the

Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA) concluding that Kakaygeesick failed to

Appellate Case: 10-1109 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/12/2010 Entry ID: 3692942
2

A July 2005 order from an administrative law judge (ALJ) “Determining Heirs

and Decree of Distribution” is not properly before us because Kakaygeesick failed to

appeal it to the IBIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 704 (judicial review of final agency action); 43

C.F.R. § 4.314(a) (no decision of ALJ will be considered final so as to constitute

agency action subject to judicial review under § 704 unless it is has made effective by

appeal to and decision by IBIA); Darby v. Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137, 153-54 (1993)

(discussing prerequisite to judicial review under APA). 

-2-

exercise due diligence in pursuing a land claim, was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse

of discretion, or otherwise inconsistent with the law. See South Dakota v. U.S. Dept.

of Interior, 487 F.3d 548, 551 (8th Cir. 2007) (appellate standard of review and

applicable legal standard under APA). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court

is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.2

______________________________

Appellate Case: 10-1109 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/12/2010 Entry ID: 3692942