1The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 99-1209EM

_____________

Carol Sue Harvey; John Harvey, *

* On Appeal from the United

Appellants, * States District Court

* for the Eastern District

v. * of Missouri.

*

John Thatcher, * [Not To Be Published]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: August 4, 1999

 Filed: August 16, 1999

___________

Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

John and Carol Harvey appeal from the District Court’s1 order denying their

“third motion to reverse” an adverse grant of summary judgment. We affirm.

In May 1996, the Harveys filed a complaint against St. Genevieve County

Sheriff’s Deputy Thatcher. The Harveys claimed that Thatcher approached Carol and
2The Honorable George F. Gunn, Jr., late a United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-

“asked for John,” and Carol showed Thatcher a document indicating John was in

custody; and that two days later, law-enforcement officers illegally entered Carol’s

home without a warrant, brandished weapons, and intercepted her telephone calls.

In August 1996, Thatcher filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that he

had committed no act giving rise to liability. He attached John’s “Answer for Request

for Admissions,” stating that “Thatcher did not enter home of Plaintiff unlawfully,” and

that “Thatcher [was] not believed to be in a conspiracy to unlawfully enter Plaintiff’s

home.” 

In January 1997, the District Court2 granted Thatcher’s unopposed motion for

summary judgment. John then filed a “motion for reconsideration” of the grant of

summary judgment, asserting that Thatcher was responsible for the other officers’

illegal entry because he negligently failed to tell his superiors that John was in custody.

The Court denied the motion for reconsideration. Carol then filed a motion to “reverse

[Thatcher’s] dismissal,” arguing the document admitting that Thatcher had not entered

the home unlawfully was signed only by John. The Court noted that Carol’s motion did

not dispute John’s admissions, and concluded that there was no basis for changing the

order granting summary judgment for Thatcher. The Harveys filed a “third motion to

reverse dismissal of Defendant Thatcher,” arguing that John’s admissions did not

contain Carol’s signature, that John had been forced to take “mind altering” drugs, and

that John had been “ordered to probation” and to pay thousands of dollars. In a

November 13, 1998, order, the Court noted that Thatcher had been granted summary

judgment and that the Harveys’ original “Motion to Reverse” had been denied. The

Court refused to rehear the issue and denied the “motion to reverse.” 
-3-

The Harveys now appeal from the November 13 order. Having carefully

reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude the District Court did not err

in denying the Harveys’ “third motion to reverse.” The Harveys merely repeated the

allegations contained in their complaint, repeated arguments from their earlier “motions

to reverse,” failed to indicate why they had not responded to the summary judgment

motion, and failed to allege any circumstances warranting relief. 

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

A true copy.

Attest:

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