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Hoopes U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 13-3698 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield [UNPUBLISHED] [Per Curiam.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.