DISCLAIMER:  The following unofficial case summaries are prepared by the clerk's office
                        as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.
133627P.pdf   04/27/2015  Roderick Nunley  v.  Michael Bowersox
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3627
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City    
   [PUBLISHED] Capital Habeas Corpus - section 2254. Nunley unequivocally 
   waived his right to jury sentencing when he pleaded guilty. When the state 
   supreme court vacated the trial court's judgment, it remanded for a new 
   penalty hearing, not a new plea hearing and his waiver remained in effect. 
   The state supreme court did not unreasonably apply clearly established 
   federal law by denying his motion to withdraw his plea. Nunley does not 
   have a constitutional right to a jury-determined sentence because Ring v. 
   Arizona is not retroactive. The state's interpretation of state law 
   denying Nunley relief is not unreasonable, neither is the state court's 
   conclusion an unreasonable application of federal law. Nor did the state 
   court make an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the 
   evidence presented. Denial of habeas relief is affirmed. 
  
133698U.pdf   04/27/2015  Richard Remington  v.  Joby Hoopes
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-3698
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Loken, Melloy, and Gruender, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Civil Case - civil rights. Upon review of the record, it is apparent that 
   defendants were sued only in their official capacities, as complaint 
   contained no clear statement indicating an individual-capacity suit. 
   Caption and complaint named each defendant and official title, which is 
   insufficient to state an individual-capacity claim. The official capacity 
   claim fails, as no facts or evidence show the defendants acted pursuant to 
   a government policy or custom. Thus, summary judgment in favor of 
   defendants is affirmed. 
  
141639P.pdf   04/27/2015  Charles Miller  v.  Carolyn W. Colvin
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1639
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - St. Joseph    
   [PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Loken and Melloy, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil Case -social security. ALJ was justified in discounting opinions of 
   treating physicians and substantial evidence on the record as a whole 
   supports the ALJ's decision that Miller could perform light work. Opinion 
   of chiropractor was not well-supported by medically acceptable diagnostic 
   techniques and not inconsistent with other substantial evidence in the 
   record. ALJ appropriately gave little weight to doctor's opinion that was 
   based on single evaluation and was inconsistent with other evidence in the 
   record. A determination of residual functional capacity is ultimately an 
   administrative determination reserved to the Commissioner and the ALJ 
   bears the primary responsibility for assessing the claimant's residual 
   functional capacity. 
  
141749P.pdf   04/27/2015  Chavis Van & Storage, etc.  v.  United Van Lines
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1749
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis    
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil Case - diversity - contract. In claim for breach of contract in 
   which Chavis Van & Storage claimed it was not assigned the role of origin 
   agency and destination agent by United Van Lines, the grant of summary 
   judgment to United is affirmed. The agency agreement is not ambiguous. 
   None of documents Chavis identifies support that it is the only 
   "authorized" agent to its home market for non-military shipments or the 
   exclusive agent for military shipments, and thus United did not breach the 
   agreement. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the 
   motion to compel discovery. 
  
141912P.pdf   04/27/2015  Convent Corporation  v.  City of North Little Rock
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-1912
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock    
   [PUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Smith, Benton, and Shepherd, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Civil Case - attorneys fees. After civil rights case was removed to 
   federal court based on federal claims, district court found it lacked 
   subject matter jurisdiction based on a failure to exhaust administrative 
   remedies and remanded matter to state court. District court's denial of 
   attorneys fees to plaintiffs for costs, fees and expenses incurred in 
   removal was not an abuse of discretion because defendants had an 
   objectively reasonable basis for removal. 
  
142140U.pdf   04/27/2015  Danny Sitton  v.  Correctional Medical Services
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-2140
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Bye, Colloton, and Shepherd, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Civil Case - civil rights. Adverse grant of summary judgment is summarily 
   affirmed. District court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to 
   recuse. 
  
142766U.pdf   04/27/2015  United States  v.  James Bentley, Jr.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-2766
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Loken, Bowman, and Kelly, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Criminal Case - Anders. Appeal waiver is enforced as to substantive claims 
   raised on appeal and waiver will not result in a miscarriage of justice. 
   Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, outside the scope of the 
   waiver, will not be addressed on direct criminal appeal because they 
   involve matters as to which the record has not been developed. 
  
143159U.pdf   04/27/2015  Lisa Lopez  v.  Carolyn W. Colvin
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-3159
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Loken, Bowman, and Kelly, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Civil Case - social security. Decision denying disability insurance and 
   supplemental security income benefits is supported by substantial evidence 
   on the record as a whole. 
  
143563U.pdf   04/27/2015  Stephen Carlson, I  v.  U.S. Bank, N.A.
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  14-3563
   Appeal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit    
   [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam. Before Loken, Bowman, and Kelly, Circuit 
   Judges] 
   Bankruptcy - Chapter 13. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel?s affirmance of the 
   bankruptcy court?s order denying motions for relief and dismissing 
   chapter 13 case is summarily affirmed without comment.