Court Opinion

ID: 9942553
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 16:02:06.117308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:19.711996
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-3079
                         ___________________________

                                      Susan Lloyd

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

                                            v.

          TD Bank USA NA CO Target Enterprise Inc.; Target Corporation

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
                                        ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                          for the District of Minnesota
                                  ____________

                           Submitted: February 15, 2024
                             Filed: February 21, 2024
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before SHEPHERD, STRAS, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

       Pennsylvania resident Susan Lloyd appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of her
pro se civil complaint asserting claims of discrimination under the Americans with

      1
       The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.
Disabilities Act (ADA) against Target Corporation, as well as federal and state claims
related to debt collection. She also challenges the district court’s denial of her motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint.

      After careful review, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion
in dismissing Lloyd’s ADA claim without prejudice because it was misjoined. See
Stephens v. Does, 777 Fed. Appx. 176, 177 (8th Cir. 2019) (unpublished per curiam)
(standard of review). We also conclude the district court did not err in dismissing her
remaining federal and state claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
See Christopherson v. Bushner, 33 F.4th 495, 499 (8th Cir. 2022) (standard of
review). Finally, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Lloyd leave to file her second amended complaint. See In re 2007 Novastar Fin. Inc.,
Sec. Lit., 579 F.3d 878, 884-85 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard of review); Knowles v. TD
Ameritrade Holding Corp., 2 F.4th 751, 758 (8th Cir. 2021) (affirming denial of leave
to amend and with-prejudice dismissal where, despite previous amendments, plaintiff
unable to plead adequate claim).

      The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                     ______________________________

                                          -2-