Robert M. Bry Plaintiff - Appellant v. Megan Julian Movant

ResetAA Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Robert M. Bry Plaintiff - Appellant v. City of Frontenac, Missouri; Jeremy Newton; James Ford; Matthew Loveless; Brian Wuertz; Matthew Brune; Timothy Barnett; Rex Baumgartner Defendants - Appellees Megan Julian Movant

No. 16-1202

    Decided: November 16, 2016

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

Robert M. Bry appeals after the District Court 1 granted summary judgment to defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We affirm. See Gray v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 799 F.3d 995, 999 (8th Cir. 2015) (“We review grants of summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”).

First, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bry's motions for sanctions. See Strutton v. Meade, 668 F.3d 549, 559 (8th Cir. 2012) (concluding that the decision not to impose sanctions was not an abuse of the district court's considerable discretion where the destruction of evidence, while intentional, did not necessarily reflect a fraudulent intent to suppress the truth), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 124 (2012). Second, Bry offers no valid basis for overturning the well-reasoned determination that the record showed that the defendant police officers had at least arguable probable cause to arrest Bry. See Amrine v. Brooks, 522 F.3d 823, 832 (8th Cir. 2008) (“Officers may also be entitled to qualified immunity if they arrest a suspect under the mistaken belief that they have probable cause to do so, provided that the mistake is objectively reasonable.”).2 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court, and we deny as moot appellees' motion to file a sur-reply to Bry's reply brief.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

2.   Bry has abandoned his claims against the City of Frontenac, as well as his conspiracy and state-law claims, by not briefing this Court on why dismissal of those claims was improper. See Hess v. Ables, 714 F.3d 1048, 1051 n.2 (8th Cir. 2013).

PER CURIAM.

FindLaw Career Center


      Post a Job  |  View More Jobs

    View More