HARRIS v. CITY OF TEXARKANA ARKANSAS (2020)

[Unpublished]

Laney Harris appeals the district court's ¹ dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and related orders. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. We conclude that dismissal was proper, see Waters v. Madson, 921 F.3d 725, 734 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review); and that there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of Harris's motions for default judgment, for leave to file a second amended complaint, or for modification of the court's scheduling order, see Ellingsworth v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 949 F.3d 1097, 1100 (8th Cir. 2020) (plaintiff who seeks to amend after deadline has passed must show good cause); Angelo Iafrate Constr., LLC v. Potashnick Constr., Inc., 370 F.3d 715, 722 (8th Cir. 2004) (default judgment gives rise to inconsistent results when defendants are similarly situated); Bradford v. DANA Corp., 249 F.3d 807, 809 (8th Cir. 2001) (movant must show good cause to modify case management order). Harris's appeal of the magistrate's order imposing sanctions is not properly before us. See McDonald v. City of Saint Paul, 679 F.3d 698, 709 (8th Cir. 2012) (appellate court could not review magistrate's order denying non-dispositive motion, because appellant failed to object to order before district court).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

PER CURIAM.