ROGERS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Elroy ROGERS Plaintiff - Appellant v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; Minnesota Board of Animal Health; Diane Sutton; Kris Petrini; Mike Curely; Carl Denkinger; Mike Fier; Kyle Mooney; Ryan Brunsvold; Mark Mather; Richard Maes; Michelle Dietrich; Leland Bush; Jeremy Schefers; Beth S. Thompson; Will Wiebe; Johnathan Fawbush; Michael L. Stine; Steven Just; Leah Hedman Defendants - Appellees

No. 18-2845

Decided: July 25, 2019

Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

Elroy Rogers, Pro Se David W. Fuller, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendants-Appellees United States Department of Agriculture, Mike Fier, Will Wiebe, Johnathan Fawbush, Michael L. Stine, Steven Just Max Kieley, Assistant Attorney General, Philip S. Pulitzer, Attorney General's Office, Saint Paul, MN, for Defendants-Appellees Minnesota Board of Animal Health, Kris Petrini, Mike Curely, Carl Denkinger, Michelle Dietrich, Leland Bush, Beth S. Thompson, Leah Hedman David W. Fuller, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, Max Kieley, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General's Office, Saint Paul, MN, for Defendant-Appellee Diane Sutton Thomas P. Carlson, Nigel H. Mendez, Carlson & Associates, Vadnais Heights, MN, for Defendants-Appellees Kyle Mooney, Ryan Brunsvold, Mark Mather, Richard Maes

[Unpublished]

Elroy Rogers appeals the district court’s ¹ grant of defendants’ motions to dismiss his complaint, which he identified as being brought under the Administrative Procedures Act. Upon de novo review, we agree with the district court that dismissal of Rogers’s complaint was warranted. See Compart’s Boar Store, Inc. v. United States, 829 F.3d 600, 604 (8th Cir. 2016) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 848-49 (8th Cir. 2014) (dismissal for failure to state claim). We conclude that the district court also did not err in denying Rogers’s motions asserting judicial bias and prejudice. See Bannister v. Delo, 100 F.3d 610, 614 (8th Cir. 1996) (reviewing for abuse of discretion whether disqualification is required in particular case). The judgment is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B; and Rogers’s appellate motion is denied.

FOOTNOTES

1. The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota, now retired.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

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.

Go To Learn About The Law