Case Name: Joseph DIXON, Appellant, v. FAIRBANKS CAPITAL CORPORATION, sued as Fairbanks Capital Corp. Mortgage, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-21
Citations: 126 F. App'x 338
Docket Number: No. 05-1278
Parties: Joseph DIXON, Appellant, v. FAIRBANKS CAPITAL CORPORATION, sued as Fairbanks Capital Corp. Mortgage, Appellee.
Judges: Before MELLOY, MCMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 126
Pages: 338–339

Head Matter:
Joseph DIXON, Appellant, v. FAIRBANKS CAPITAL CORPORATION, sued as Fairbanks Capital Corp. Mortgage, Appellee.
No. 05-1278.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: April 7, 2005.
Decided: April 21, 2005.
Joseph Dixon, Minneapolis, MN, pro se.
John Garrett Westrick, St. Paul, MN, Lawrence Paul Zielke, Shapiro & Nordmeyer, Edina, MN, for Appellee.
Before MELLOY, MCMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Joseph Dixon appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in his lawsuit against Fairbanks Capital Corporation (FCC) arising from a threatened property foreclosure. Having carefully reviewed the record, see Revels v. Vincenz, 382 F.3d 870, 874 (8th Cir.2004) (standard of review), we affirm.
Although we agree with Dixon that the instant complaint involves different foreclosure proceedings than did the prior litigation between Dixon and FCC's predecessor, we nevertheless conclude that summary judgment was warranted. First, Dixon provided nothing to counter the evidence offered by FCC, which supported the challenged foreclosure proceedings. Further, Dixon's numerous federal and state claims arising from the threatened foreclosure are clearly meritless and do not warrant extended discussion. See Manion v. Nagin, 394 F.3d 1062, 1070 (8th Cir.2005) (this court may affirm grant of summary judgment on any basis supported by record).
We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of default judgment. See Harris v. St. Louis Police Dept., 164 F.3d 1085, 1086 (8th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (standard of review). The remaining issues that Dixon lists in his statement of issues for appeal provide no basis for reversal.
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Dixon's pending motions and decline to consider the new allegations he raises in his motion for emergency relief. See Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.2004).
. The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.