Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
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
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.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-1202
Decided: November 16, 2016
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)