United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-1698 ___________

Cletus J. Stratman; Judith E. Stratman, * * Appellants, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the L i n z e Brockmeyer, individually and * Eastern District of Missouri. doing business as Logcrafters Log * and Timber Homes, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * ___________

Submitted: October 14, 1997 Filed: October 30, 1997 ___________

Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM. In this diversity contract action, Cletus and Judith Stratman--husband and wife--appeal the district court&s1 grant of judgment as a matter of law to Linze Brockmeyer, individually and d/b/a Logcrafters Log and Timber Homes (collectively Logcrafters), following a jury trial. The Stratmans also appeal the district court&s exclusion of

1 The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. certain

-2- expert testimony as a discovery sanction. We affirm.

This dispute arose out of the Stratmans& purchase of a ready-to-assemble log home from Logcrafters. The Stratmans alleged a breach of contract and a violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 407.010-407.130 (1994 & Supp. 1996).

After de novo review, see Sip-Top, Inc. v. Ekco Group, Inc., 86 F.3d 827, 830 (8th Cir. 1996), we agree that the Stratmans failed to present evidence from which a jury could conclude that Logcrafters breached the parties& contract. We also agree that the Stratmans failed to make a submissible case that Logcrafters violated the MMPA. See Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 407.020, 407.025 (1994 & Supp. 1996). We find no abuse of discretion in the district court&s limitation of the testimony of Stratmans& expert witness, as his report was supplied shortly before trial and did not comport with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. See Sylla-Sawdon v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co., 47 F.3d 277, 284 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 84 (1995).

Logcrafters& motion to dismiss this appeal is denied, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-3- -4-