Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02402/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02402-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2402

___________

William Bradford, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Eastern District of Missouri.

*

Jamie Hickman; Alan Blake, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 1, 2007

Filed: June 11, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

William Bradford appeals the district court’s1

 order denying his motion to

reconsider its denial of a preliminary injunction in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit.

Whether Bradford’s motion to reconsider was brought under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 59(e) or 60(b), we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by

denying it. See Christensen v. Qwest Pension Plan, 462 F.3d 913, 920 (8th Cir. 2006)

(clear-abuse-of-discretion standard of review for Rule 59(e) motion); Arnold v. Wood,

238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001) (abuse-of-discretion standard of review for Rule

Appellate Case: 06-2402 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/11/2007 Entry ID: 3318066
-2-

60(b) motion). To the extent he was seeking Rule 60(b) relief, he gave no reason for

his motion and merely restated arguments and declarations he had already made. See

Arnold, 238 F.3d at 998 (noting Rule 60(b) motion is not vehicle for simply rearguing

merits). To the extent he was seeking Rule 59(e) relief, he provided no basis to

challenge the conclusion that he had not met his burden of proving a preliminary

injunction should issue under the factors set forth in Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. CL Sys.,

Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113-14 & n.5 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2402 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/11/2007 Entry ID: 3318066