Reginald Morgan v. Brown & Williamson ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 99-1308
    ___________
    Reginald Morgan,                        *
    *
    Appellant,                 *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Missouri
    Brown & Williamson Tobacco              *
    Corporation,                            *       [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellee.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: August 6, 1999
    Filed: August 27, 1999
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Reginald Morgan appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1
    for the Eastern District of Missouri granting the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion of
    Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation (B & W) to dismiss Morgan&s civil action.
    For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
    1
    The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    We review de novo the district court&s dismissal of an action for failure to state
    a claim; dismissal is not appropriate unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff
    can prove no set of facts that would demonstrate entitlement to relief. See Smith v. St.
    Bernards Reg&l Med. Ctr., 
    19 F.3d 1254
    , 1255 (8th Cir. 1994) (Smith). Morgan&s
    complaint merely named B & W as the defendant, and failed to state what B & W did
    or did not do to cause his alleged injuries. Thus, he failed to give fair notice of his
    claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); 
    Smith, 19 F.3d at 1255
    (Rule 8(a)(2) requires only
    a short, plain statement of claim giving fair notice of plaintiff&s claim and grounds for
    relief). We agree with the district court that the complaint fails to state a claim against
    B & W.
    Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal of Morgan&s complaint. We note that the
    dismissal was without prejudice, which means that Morgan is free to bring a new suit
    against B & W, although he is required to put B & W on notice of what it did or did not
    do to cause his alleged injuries.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-1308

Filed Date: 8/27/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021