Court Opinion

ID: 2790597
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-04-01 16:01:00.661369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:10:33.744982
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                              For the Eighth Circuit
                          ___________________________

                                  No. 15-1144
                          ___________________________

                                      Samar Akins

                         lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

                                             v.

          Michael Wilson; Keith Morris, doing business as Morris Enterprises

                        lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
                                         ____________

                      Appeal from United States District Court
                       for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln
                                   ____________

                              Submitted: March 25, 2015
                                 Filed: April 1, 2015
                                    [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
                         ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Samar Akins appeals the district court’s1 preservice dismissal, without
prejudice, of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Upon careful de novo review, we

      1
      The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District
of Nebraska.
conclude that the district court’s dismissal was proper. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)
(requiring dismissal if court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction); Hart v. United States, 630 F.3d 1085, 1088 (8th Cir. 2011) (dismissal
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo); see also Bilal v. Kaplan,
904 F.2d 14, 15 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (jurisdiction must affirmatively appear
clearly and distinctly in complaint; mere suggestion of federal question is not
sufficient to establish jurisdiction).

      Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                     ______________________________

                                         -2-