Brock Fredin v. Lindsey Middlecamp ( 2021 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 20-3487
___________________________
Brock Fredin
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Lindsey E. Middlecamp
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
___________________________
No. 20-3513
___________________________
Brock Fredin
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Grace Elizabeth Miller; Catherine Marie Schaefer
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
___________________________
No. 20-3516
___________________________
Brock Fredin
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Grace Elizabeth Miller; Catherine Marie Schaefer
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
___________________________
No. 20-3525
___________________________
Brock Fredin
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Lindsey E. Middlecamp
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
___________________________
No. 20-3528
___________________________
Brock Fredin
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Jamie Kreil
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
___________________________
-2-
No. 21-1132
___________________________
Brock Fredin
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Jamie Kreil
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
___________________________
No. 21-1134
___________________________
Brock Fredin
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Lindsey E. Middlecamp
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee
___________________________
No. 21-1135
___________________________
Brock Fredin
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
-3-
v.
Grace Elizabeth Miller; Catherine Marie Schaefer
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: August 3, 2021
Filed: August 10, 2021
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals from his actions raising state law claims based
on diversity jurisdiction, Brock Fredin challenges the district court’s1 orders (1)
denying his motion to extend the discovery deadline; (2) granting summary judgment
in favor of defendants; (3) imposing an injunction relating to certain videos and
websites involving defendants, their counsel, and the district court; (4) ordering him
to show cause why he did not comply with the injunction; and (5) declaring him a
vexatious litigant and imposing filing restrictions.2 After careful review of the record
1
The Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota.
2
To the extent Fredin intended to challenge any other matters, he has waived
the opportunity to do so. See Hess v. Ables, 714 F.3d 1048, 1051 n.2 (8th Cir. 2013)
(where dismissal of claim is not challenged on appeal, claim is abandoned); Hacker
-4-
and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. See Jackson v.
Reibold, 815 F.3d 1114, 1119 (8th Cir. 2016) (summary judgment standard of
review); Life Plus Int’l v. Brown, 317 F.3d 799, 806 (8th Cir. 2003) (district court’s
decisions concerning its management of discovery process are reviewed for abuse of
discretion); Bass v. Gen. Motors Corp., 150 F.3d 842, 851 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard
of review of court’s sanctions under inherent authority); In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290,
1290-91, 1290-95 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (upholding filing limitation on
plaintiff who abused judicial process; courts have a “clear obligation” to exercise
their authority to protect litigants from harassing, abusive, and meritless litigation).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937 n.2 (8th Cir. 2006) (issue is deemed abandoned where
party does not raise it in appellate brief).
-5-