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 David Ebinger, * [UNPUBLISHED]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, *
1The Honorable 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.

Wardell Washington brought an action alleging defendants had misused a

manuscript 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 Court1 granted summary judgment for defendants, and denied Washington’s

motion for 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

discovery before ruling on the summary judgment motion because the facts Washington

sought to obtain would not have prevented the entry of summary judgment. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 56(f); Duffy v. Wolle, 123 F.3d 1026, 1040-41 (8th Cir. 1997), cert. denied,

118 S. Ct. 1839 (1998); Allen v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 81 F.3d 793, 797-98 (8th

Cir. 1996). Finally, we conclude the District Court did not abuse its discretion in

denying the motion for reconsideration. See Perkins v. US West Communications, 138

F.3d 336, 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.