Case Name: Herman JACKSON, Appellant, v. The BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Chris Goodson, Joann Freeman-Morrow, Michael J. Quinn, Julius Hunter, Reginald P. Bodeux, Francis Slay and Paul M. Nocchiero, Respondents
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2008-03-18
Citations: 253 S.W.3d 85
Docket Number: No. ED 89837
Parties: Herman JACKSON, Appellant, v. The BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Chris Goodson, Joann Freeman-Morrow, Michael J. Quinn, Julius Hunter, Reginald P. Bodeux, Francis Slay and Paul M. Nocchiero, Respondents.
Judges: Before MARY K. HOFF, P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 253
Pages: 85–85

Head Matter:
Herman JACKSON, Appellant, v. The BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Chris Goodson, Joann Freeman-Morrow, Michael J. Quinn, Julius Hunter, Reginald P. Bodeux, Francis Slay and Paul M. Nocchiero, Respondents.
No. ED 89837.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
March 18, 2008.
C. John Pleban, Michael J. Schaller, Lynette M. Petruska, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Mark E. Lawson, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.
Before MARY K. HOFF, P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Herman Jackson (hereinafter, "Jackson") appeals from the circuit court's judgment affirming the decision of the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners (hereinafter, "the Board") terminating his employment. Jackson raises three points on appeal. First, Jackson claims he was entitled to a full hearing before the Board rather than before a hearing officer. Second, Jackson challenges the Board's decision, alleging it is not supported by competent and substantial evidence on the record. Third, Jackson argues the circuit court erred in dismissing his ancillary claims contained in his petition for judicial review pursuant to Section 536.110 RSMo (2000).
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and transcript on appeal. We find no error occurred. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law 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 Commission's decision pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).