Tony Nenninger v. United States Forest Service , 353 F. App'x 80 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 08-3106
    ___________
    Tony Nenninger,                          *
    *
    Appellant,                  *
    *   Appeal from the United States
    v.                                *   District Court for the Western
    *   District of Arkansas.
    United States Forest Service;            *
    Mark Rey, in official capacity           *       [UNPUBLISHED]
    as Undersecretary for USDA; Gayle        *
    Kimball, in official capacity as Chief   *
    of Forest Service; Don Palmer, in        *
    official capacity as FS Special Use      *
    Program Manager; John Twiss,             *
    individually and in official capacity as *
    FS Chief of law enforcement; Gene        *
    Smithson, in official capacity as FS     *
    Incident Commander during Fourth of *
    July rainbow gatherings; Ellen           *
    Hornstein, individually and in official *
    capacity as FS legal counsel; John/Jane *
    Does, individually and in official       *
    capacities for FS and/or other           *
    government agencies; Officer             *
    Kragstadt, individually and in official *
    capacity in FS law enforcement; Officer *
    Lampshire, individually and in official *
    capacity in FS law enforcement,          *
    *
    Appellees.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: November 23, 2009
    Filed: November 27, 2009
    ___________
    Before BYE, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Tony Nenninger appeals from the order of the District Court1 granting
    defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment in his
    action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
    
    403 U.S. 388
    (1971), and the court's subsequent order denying his motion to amend
    the judgment. Having carefully reviewed the record and Nenninger’s arguments, we
    conclude that the District Court did not err in granting defendants’ motion and did not
    abuse its discretion in denying Nenninger’s motion to amend. See Franklin v. Local
    2 of the Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n, 
    565 F.3d 508
    , 520 (8th Cir. 2009) (noting
    that order granting summary judgment is reviewed de novo on appeal); Taxi
    Connection v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Corp., 
    513 F.3d 823
    , 825 (8th Cir. 2008)
    (noting that order granting motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo on appeal); United
    States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 
    440 F.3d 930
    , 933 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that
    order denying motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is
    reviewed for clear abuse of discretion on appeal). Accordingly, we affirm. We also
    deny Nenninger’s pending motion to schedule oral argument.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court
    for the Western District of Arkansas.
    -2-