ANDERSON v. SMITH (2020)

[Unpublished]

Leonard Anderson and the City of St. Paul have had a long-running dispute over building-code violations on his property. He eventually sued the City and one of its inspectors in federal court. His amended complaint contained two sets of claims: seven total under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and two more under state law.

The district court ¹ dismissed the federal claims with prejudice, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Reviewing the dismissal de novo and having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, we agree with the district court that Anderson's amended complaint fails to state a federal claim. See Kelly v. City of Omaha, 813 F.3d 1070, 1075 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review). We accordingly affirm the judgment.² See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

2.   We note that the district court's order states that “Anderson's state-law claims” are dismissed without prejudice, but the judgment itself omits one: a trespass claim (Claim V). If this is a clerical error, the district court can correct it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a).

PER CURIAM.