George Hannett v. John Langland ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 99-3350
    ___________
    George Hannett,                           *
    *
    Appellant,                   *
    *
    v.                                  * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    John Langland,                            * Eastern District of Missouri
    *
    *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellee.                    *
    ___________
    Submitted:    August 4, 2000
    Filed: October 20, 2000
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit
    Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    George Hannett appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1
    for the Eastern District of Missouri dismissing his pro se civil rights action. For
    reversal, Hannett argues the district court erred in denying him leave to file an amended
    1
    The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    complaint to add new parties prior to dismissal. For the reasons discussed below, we
    affirm the judgment of the district court.
    In March 1996 Hannett filed this complaint and amended it twice. In November
    1997 counsel was appointed, and was granted thirty days to file an amended complaint.
    Counsel, however, did not do so. The following year Hannett stipulated to dismissal
    of the claims against all but one named defendant, as to whom service of process was
    never obtained.
    On June 22, 1999, Hannett’s counsel sought leave to file an amended complaint
    but did not present a proposed amendment. The court denied counsel’s request, and
    dismissed Hannett’s action without prejudice for failure to comply with a previous
    order requiring him to obtain service on the remaining defendant.
    We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to
    amend, see Dennis v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 
    207 F.3d 523
    , 525 (8th Cir. 2000),
    given counsel’s failure to submit the proposed amended complaint with his oral motion,
    or even to indicate what the amended complaint would contain or against whom
    specifically it would be brought, see Wolgin v. Simon, 
    722 F.2d 389
    , 394-95 (8th Cir.
    1984).
    Accordingly, we affirm.
    -2-
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-3350

Filed Date: 10/20/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/13/2015