## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-3051

___________ Wardell Washington, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Nancy Hollis, Individually and in her * capacity as an employee of Worthen/ * Boatmen National Bank in Little Rock, * Arkansas; David Ebinger, Individually * and in his capacity as an employee of * Worthen/Boatmen National Bank, and * in his capacity as Detective Sergeant * of Little Rock Police Department, * * On Appeal from the United States Appellees, * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. John Doe, Individually and in his/her * capacity as Sgt. David Ebinger, * [UNPUBLISHED] Supervisor at Worthen/Boatmen * National Bank in Little Rock, Arkansas, * * Defendant, * * Curt Bradbury, Individually and in his * capacity as former Chairman/President * of Worthen National Bank; Chip * Dudley, Individually and in his * capacity as President of Boatmen’s * National Bank of Arkansas in Little * Rock, Arkansas; Gary Smith, *1 TheHonorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas. -2- Individually and in his capacity as * Executive Vice President of Boatmen’s * National Bank of Little Rock, * Arkansas; NationsBank, formerly * known as Worthen National Bank of * Arkansas, formerly known as * Boatmen’s National Bank of Arkansas, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: July 7, 1999 Filed: July 27, 1999

___________ Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Warde ll Washington brought an action alleging defendants had misused a manu script he had written and asserting claims of copyright and trademark infringement, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, “unauthorized duplication and distribution,” unfair and deceptive practices, malicious “stealing/taking and copying” of the manuscript, a RICO violation, and conspiracy. See Appellant's Brief at 1. The District Court 1 granted summary judgment for defendants, and denied Washington’s motionfor reconsideration. Washington appeals. He has filed a motion to supplement the record, which we grant.
After reviewing the District Court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, see Thomas v. Gunter , 103 F.3d 700, 702 (8th Cir. 1997), we conclude that Washington’s-3-

claims are unsupported, and that defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We also conclude the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying further discoverybefore ruling on the summary judgment motion because the facts Washington sought to obtain wouldnot have prevented the entry of summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f); Duffyv. Wolle , 123 F.3d 1026, 1040-41 (8th Cir. 1997), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 1839 (1998); Allenv. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. , 81 F.3d 793, 797-98 (8th Cir. 1996)

. Finally, we conclude the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denyingthe motion for reconsideration. See Perkins v. US West Communications , 138 F.3d336, 340 (8th Cir. 1998); Sanders v. Clemco Indus. , 862 F.2d 161, 169 & n.14 (8th Cir. 1988). As no error of law appears in the District Court’s ruling, and we affirm for the reasons set forth in the District Court’s decision, we believe that an extended opinion is unnecessary. Accordingly, we affirm without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.

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