Case Name: Nelson MONK, Appellant, v. CITY OF MEXICO, Missouri, Thomas I. Osborne, William R. Heath, Jr. and James Dick, Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1997-11-04
Citations: 958 S.W.2d 35
Docket Number: No. 71755
Parties: Nelson MONK, Appellant, v. CITY OF MEXICO, Missouri, Thomas I. Osborne, William R. Heath, Jr. and James Dick, Respondents.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., P.J., and SIMON and HOFF, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 958
Pages: 35–36

Head Matter:
Nelson MONK, Appellant, v. CITY OF MEXICO, Missouri, Thomas I. Osborne, William R. Heath, Jr. and James Dick, Respondents.
No. 71755.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Nov. 4, 1997.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 8,1998.
Nelson Monk, Pacific, pro se.
Paule, Camazine & Blumenthal, P.C., D. Keith Henson, Andrew T. Pickens, IV, Clayton, for respondents.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., P.J., and SIMON and HOFF, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Nelson Monk (Monk) appeals the trial court's judgment granting the motion for summary judgment filed by City of Mexico (City) in his civil rights law suit. First, Monk contends the trial court deprived him of meaningful access to the court and due process by not sua sponte permitting him to appear at the motion hearing and not affording him a reasonable alternative to such a personal appearance. Second, Monk argues the trial court erred by not sua sponte requiring City to respond to two of Monk's interrogatories before granting City's summary judgment motion.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. Upon de novo review, we find no genuine issue of material fact or error of law. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).