Case Name: Fred C. HOLLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-24
Citations: 637 F. App'x 263
Docket Number: No. 15-2309
Parties: Fred C. HOLLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 637
Pages: 263–264

Head Matter:
Fred C. HOLLAND, Plaintiff-Appellant v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-2309.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 17, 2016.
Filed: Feb. 24, 2016.
Fred C. Holland, Lexington, MN, pro se.
Craig Raymond Baune, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Minnesota resident Fred Holland appeals the district court's dismissal of his pro se complaint alleging that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs erroneously cut off his worker's compensation benefits and fired him. After careful de novo review, see Riley v. United States, 486 F.3d 1030, 1031 (8th Cir.2007) (de novo review of dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction), we conclude that dismissal was appropriate for the reasons stated by the district court. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of The Honorable Becky . R. Thorson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.