 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Flores v. Danfelser6/4/1999
te nor its officials acting in an official capacity are deemed "persons" within the scope of 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Daddow v. Carlsbad Mun. Sch. Dist., 120 N.M. 97, 101-02, 898 P.2d 1235, 1239-40 (1995).
{35} Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the district court's dismissal of their complaint with prejudice was improper because the order did not specify the reasons for dismissal, did not permit the complaint to be amended, and did not permit an opportunity for discovery. We find these arguments without merit. A district court is not required to state reasons for granting a motion to dismiss under Rule 1-012(B)(6). Additionally, Plaintiffs failed to specify in the proceedings below and before this Court how the filing of an amended complaint would materially differ from the prior complaint. Cf. Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1346 (5th Cir. 1994) (dismissal without leave to amend upheld where plaintiff did not request such relief and failed to point out how complaint would be amended to avoid dismissal).
{36} Plaintiffs have failed to show an error in the order dismissing their tort or civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
CONCLUSION
{37} The district court's order dismissing Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants is affirmed.
{38 IT IS SO ORDERED.
THOMAS A. DONNELLY, Judge
WE CONCUR: JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge M. CHRISTINA ARMIJO, Judge
|