Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01940/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01940-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1940

___________

Michael Duane Damron, *

*

Appellant *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

North Dakota Commissioner of * District of North Dakota.

Corrections, Bismarck, North Dakota; *

Tim Schuetzle, Warden, ND State * [UNPUBLISHED]

Penitentiary; Bob Coad, Deputy *

Warden (ND); Ingrid Omlid, Education *

Dir. NDSP; Tammy Barstad, Instructor, *

NDSP; Dan Wrolstad, Former *

Education Dir. NDSP; Mike Fluck, *

Guard, NDSP; Mike Kolden, *

Caseworker, NDSP; Pat Branson, *

Guard, NDSP; Dan Ebach, NDSP; *

Corky Stromme, Security, NDSP, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 29, 2005

Filed: May 9, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 04-1940 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/09/2005 Entry ID: 1900523
1

The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of North Dakota.

-2-

Michael Duane Damron appeals following the district court’s1

 grant of

summary judgment to defendants in his disability-discrimination and civil-rights

action. Damron’s notice of appeal is timely only as to the district court’s denial of his

“Motion for Court to Reconsider,” which we construe as a motion under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be

filed within 30 days after entry of judgment or order); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi)

(Rule 60 motion tolls time to file appeal if motion is filed within 10 days after entry

of judgment).

We find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Damron’s Rule

60(b) motion, as the motion simply reasserted--with somewhat more detail--the

arguments he made in opposition to the summary judgment motion. See Arnold v.

Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 975

(2001); Watkins v. Lundell, 169 F.3d 540, 544 (8th Cir.) (Rule 60(b) relief is

“extraordinary remedy” justified only by “exceptional circumstances”), cert. denied,

528 U.S. 928 (1999); Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 990 (8th Cir. 1999) (Rule

60(b) motion is not for purpose of rearguing, somewhat more fully, merits of claim).

Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny Damron’s appellate motion for

injunctive relief.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1940 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/09/2005 Entry ID: 1900523