Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-27

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s lawsuit with prejudice, holding that the lower court did not abuse its broad discretion in ruling. The court applied the standard of review for abuse of discretion, relying on *Ellis v. Nike USA, Inc.*, 158 F.4th 932 (8th Cir. 2025), to conclude that the plaintiff had ample time to seek leave to file a second amended complaint but instead chose to stand on the existing one. As a result of this affirmation, the dismissal with prejudice remains in effect and the case is closed.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-27

The sixth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs and its Secretary on all of Tara Miller’s employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The court held that Miller failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation because she did not address these essential elements in her opposition brief to the district court’s summary judgment motion, thereby waiving those arguments on appeal. Even if considered, the record lacked evidence that Miller was replaced by a non-protected employee or treated less favorably than similarly situated employees outside her protected classes. Regarding retaliation claims, the court noted that § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act does not provide a cause of action for retaliation and found that Miller’s complaints constituted general workplace conflict rather than protected activity referencing statutory violations. Finally, the court rejected Miller’s hostile work environment claim, ruling that the alleged harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive under the applicable legal standard. The court clarified that the Supreme Court’s decision in *Muldrow v. City of St. Louis* did not abrogate the “severe and pervasive” requirement but merely clarified that a plaintiff need only show “some harm” to an identifiable term or condition of employment, which Miller failed to demonstrate given the isolated nature of the alleged incidents. Consequently, the judgment dismissing Miller’s lawsuit is final, and she receives no relief.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-27

The Sixth Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of TRC Engineers, Inc., and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that Bizzack Construction, LLC did not waive its negligence and breach-of-contract claims against TRC in its settlement agreement with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. Under West Virginia law, which governs the settlement, the agreement released only those claims against TRC where it was “vicariously responsible” for AECOM’s defective design services. The court found that the agreement expressly carved out claims arising from TRC’s own acts or omissions, specifically its separate duties to provide construction management and inspection services, which were distinct from AECOM’s design responsibilities. Applying a de novo standard of review, the court determined that the district court erred by limiting its analysis to the allegations in the complaint rather than considering the “course of the proceedings” and evidence developed during discovery. The record demonstrated that Bizzack maintained claims against TRC for failing to properly inspect construction and manage quality control, duties for which AECOM was not responsible. Consequently, the court concluded that genuine disputes of material fact remained regarding whether TRC breached its duty of care or contract terms in its inspection role and whether such breaches proximately caused damages. The case is remanded for the district court to address these negligence and breach-of-contract claims on their merits.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-27

The fifth-circuit granted the appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismissed the appeal after reviewing the Anders brief and the record. The court concurred with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issues for appellate review, applying the standard set forth in *Anders v. California* and Fifth Circuit precedent in *United States v. Flores*. As a result, counsel is excused from further responsibilities, and the appeal is terminated without consideration of the merits.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-27

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of Jose Manuel Suria’s Eighth Amendment claims against prison officials Stewart and Wathen for failure to protect him from inmate violence, and reversed the dismissal of his claim against Nurse Kunkel for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The court affirmed the dismissal of the claim against the unidentified defendant Doe regarding the delay in hospital transport. Applying the *Farmer v. Brennan* standard, the court held that Suria plausibly alleged a substantial risk of serious harm and that officials acted with deliberate indifference. Regarding Stewart, the court found that moving Suria to a different job was insufficient to abate the risk given general population access in understaffed units. Regarding Wathen, the court determined that allegations of unit understaffing created an obvious risk that the warden knew or should have known about, and failing to lock down the unit constituted disregard for safety. For Kunkel, the court ruled that broken fingers with visible displacement constitute a serious medical need and that the use of makeshift splints with adhesive tape causing extreme pain, combined with the refusal to provide pain medication, plausibly alleged intentional mistreatment or wanton disregard rather than mere negligence. Conversely, the court affirmed the dismissal against Doe because Suria failed to allege specific facts showing what the unidentified official knew or did, offering only a conclusory statement of deliberate indifference without factual support. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, allowing the claims against Stewart, Wathen, and Kunkel to proceed while maintaining the dismissal of the claim against Doe.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-27

The fifth-circuit granted the government’s unopposed motion to modify the judgment by striking Standard Condition 5 and replacing it with the original judgment’s Standard Condition 6, which requires the defendant to notify the probation office within seventy-two hours of any change in residence or employment, and by striking Standard Condition 7 and replacing it with the original judgment’s Standard Condition 5, which requires the defendant to work regularly at a lawful occupation unless excused for schooling, training, or other acceptable reasons. The court affirmed the judgment as modified and denied the government’s alternative requests to remand the case to the district court or to extend the time to file briefs, ruling both actions unnecessary given the direct modification of the judgment by this court.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-27

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the defendant’s conviction and 400-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The court held that the district court did not commit plain error in applying a two-level sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) for maintaining a premises for drug distribution, despite the defendant’s failure to clearly raise the specific argument regarding the “primary use” of the premises during the district court proceedings. Applying the standard that there is a “low bar” for establishing primary use and permitting courts to draw reasonable inferences from undisputed facts, the court concluded that evidence supported the inference that the defendant’s residence was used to store, manufacture, and prepare controlled substances for distribution. As a result of this affirmation, the district court’s judgment and sentence remain in full force and effect.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-27

The Fifth Circuit affirmed Jarrod Carter’s convictions for possession of a firearm after a felony conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The court reviewed Carter’s facial and as-applied challenges to the statute under the standard established in *New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen* de novo, but rejected them because Fifth Circuit precedent, specifically *United States v. Kimble*, already upholds the application of § 922(g)(1) to felons previously convicted of drug trafficking offenses. The court further held that Carter’s Commerce Clause challenge was foreclosed by binding precedent and that his new Double Jeopardy claim failed to demonstrate plain error under *United States v. Willis*. Consequently, the judgment of the district court remains in effect, and Carter’s convictions and sentences stand.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-27

The fourth-circuit dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to file timely, specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice of the consequences. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), when a district court refers a case to a magistrate judge and warns that failure to object waives appellate review of the recommendation’s substance, an appellant forfeits the right to challenge the underlying ruling on appeal by not filing those objections. Citing *Martin v. Duffy*, *Wright v. Collins*, and *Thomas v. Arn*, the court held that Cicchiello’s failure to object barred her from challenging the district court’s order accepting the recommendation to dismiss her complaint based on res judicata. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without oral argument.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-27

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Chauncey Demetrius Bennett’s second amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The court held that the complaint failed to comply with the district court’s prior instructions and did not meet the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). As a result, the dismissal order stands, and Bennett’s motions for assignment of counsel and for a refund of the filing fee are denied.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.