United States v. Sylvester Littlewind

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-2144
___________
Stephen Walter Solors, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of Minnesota.
Jim Warta; Jim Chamberlin; Keith *
Pohl; Gregory Verkuilen; Julie Olson; *
Lisa Woog; Aaron Patrick; Keith *
Haggestad; Donald F. Ryan; John J. * [UNPUBLISHED]
Sausen, Assistant County Attorney; *
Rockwell J. Wells; Tim Pickar; Lori *
Swanson; Lyman Whitney, *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: February 22, 2010
Filed: February 25, 2010
___________
Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 2 --

1The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Raymond
L. Erickson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
-2-
Stephen Solors appeals from the judgment of the District Court 1 dismissing his
civil rights action against individuals who allegedly interfered with a driveway
construction project on his land. Following careful review, we conclude that the
District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Solors’s claims based on
abstention principles. See Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar
Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982) (noting that Supreme Court precedents "espouse a
strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial
proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances"); see also Norwood v. Dickey, 409
F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review); State v. Solors, No. A09-127,
2010 WL 10381 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2010) (unpublished) (appeal from the state
proceeding against Solors). We also agree with the District Court that Solors failed
to state a claim. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (holding
that district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' restraint-of-trade complaint because
their claim was not plausible on its face); Levy v. Ohl, 477 F.3d 988, 991 (8th Cir.
2007) (de novo standard of review). Finally, the District Court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Solors’s motions for a default judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(a)(4)(A) (extending the time for serving a responsive pleading while a motion is
pending in the district court); Norsyn, Inc. v. Desai, 351 F.3d 825, 828 (8th Cir. 2003)
(standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --