Shirley Walker v. Arkansas Dept. of Correction

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-3115
___________
Samuel K. Lipari, as Assignee of *
Dissolved Medical Supply Chain, Inc., *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Western District of Missouri.
General Electric Company; General *
Electric Capital Business Asset * [UNPUBLISHED]
Funding Corporation; GE *
Transportation Systems Globaling *
Signaling, LLC; Stewart Foster; *
Jeffrey R. Immelt; Seyfarth Shaw, *
LLP; Heartland Financial Group, *
Inc.; Christopher M. McDaniel; *
Bradley J. Schlozman, *
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: November 27, 2009
Filed: December 4, 2009
___________
Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 2 --

1The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri.
-2-
Samuel Lipari appeals the district court’s 1 orders granting defendants’ motions
to dismiss his civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
claims, denying his motion to amend his complaint, and denying his post-judgment
request for the district court judge’s recusal. Following careful review, we find no
basis for reversal. See Charles Brooks Co. v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, 552 F.3d 718,
721-23 (8th Cir. 2009) (recognizing de novo review of a dismissal and affirming the
dismissal of one plaintiff’s individual claims because he failed to allege an injury to
confer standing); Regions Bank v. J.R. Oil Co., 387 F.3d 721, 728-29 (8th Cir. 2004)
(explaining, to have standing to bring a civil RICO claim, plaintiff must have suffered
an injury “by reason of” a RICO violation and the showing of an injury requires proof
of a concrete financial loss, and not mere injury to a valuable intangible property
interest); see also United States ex rel. Joshi v. St. Luke’s Hosp., 441 F.3d 552, 555
(8th Cir. 2006) (stating abuse of discretion review for denial of a motion to amend a
complaint, but de novo review of the underlying legal conclusion that a proposed
amendment to the complaint would have been futile); Hooker v. Story, 159 F.3d 1139,
1140 (8th Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (declaring the abuse of discretion standard of review
for recusal motions).
We affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --