Case Name: Claude R. SHULER, a minor, By and through his next friend James E. SHULER; James E. Shuler, Appellants, v. SPRINGFIELD R-XII SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-25
Citations: 332 F. App'x 358
Docket Number: No. 08-2175
Parties: Claude R. SHULER, a minor, By and through his next friend James E. SHULER; James E. Shuler, Appellants, v. SPRINGFIELD R-XII SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee.
Judges: Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 358–359

Head Matter:
Claude R. SHULER, a minor, By and through his next friend James E. SHULER; James E. Shuler, Appellants, v. SPRINGFIELD R-XII SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellee.
No. 08-2175.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 17, 2009.
Filed: Aug. 25, 2009.
Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James Shuler and his minor son Claude appeal from the district court's dismissal in part, and adverse grant of summary judgment in part, of this civil action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other federal and state law. After careful de novo review, we conclude that the district court properly granted the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, because appellants' federal claims are either untimely filed or administratively unex-hausted. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim. As to appellants' complaint that summary judgment was premature, they did not seek a continuance below under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, see 8th Cir. R. 47B; and we deny appellee's request for sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.
. The Honorable John T. Maughmer, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).