Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04059/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04059-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-4059

___________

Eric Castaneira, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Ed Ligtenberg, Executive Director of *

the South Dakota Board of Pardons and * [UNPUBLISHED]

Paroles; South Dakota Board of *

Pardons and Paroles; Robert D. Hofer; *

Jerry Lammers; Dennis Kaemingk; Ted *

J. Pins, Jr.; Cheryl Laurenz-Bogue; *

Thomas Cihak; Mark Marshall, in their *

individual capacities as members of the *

South Dakota Board of Pardons and *

Paroles, *

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 4, 2008

Filed: February 5, 2008

___________

Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 06-4059 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2008 Entry ID: 3399048
1

The Honorable Lawrence J. Piersol, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota. 

-2-

Eric Castaneira appeals following the district court’s1 denial of his Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.

We agree with appellees that the only matter before us is the ruling on

Castaneira’s postjudgment motion, which this court reviews for clear abuse of

discretion. See Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of Black

Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998). The purpose of a Rule 59(e) motion is to

correct manifest errors of fact or law or to offer newly discovered evidence, but not

to introduce new evidence or legal theories, or to make arguments which could have

been made before entry of judgment. See id. In seeking Rule 59(e) relief, Castaneira

merely presented an argument that he could have raised in his counseled summary

judgment resistance, and he asserted that discovery should have occurred before

summary judgment was granted, although his counsel had not sought a continuance

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), see Stanback v. Best Diversified Prods., Inc., 180 F.3d

903, 911 (8th Cir. 1999) (party opposing summary judgment who believes he has not

had adequate time for discovery must seek relief under Rule 56(f), which requires

filing affidavit with trial court specifying facts further discovery might reveal). We

thus find no basis for overturning the Rule 59(e) order.

Accordingly we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also grant Castaneira’s

motion to file his reply brief out of time.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-4059 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2008 Entry ID: 3399048