Case Name: Martin LINDSTEDT, Republican Candidate for Governor of Missouri, also known as Mad Dog, Appellant, v. Matt BLUNT, Secretary of State and Chief Election Official of Missouri, also known as Runt, and Rival Republican Candidate for Governor of Missouri; Robin Carnahan, Secretary of State, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-16
Citations: 185 F. App'x 549
Docket Number: No. 05-3173
Parties: Martin LINDSTEDT, Republican Candidate for Governor of Missouri, also known as Mad Dog, Appellant, v. Matt BLUNT, Secretary of State and Chief Election Official of Missouri, also known as Runt, and Rival Republican Candidate for Governor of Missouri; Robin Carnahan, Secretary of State, Appellees.
Judges: Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 185
Pages: 549–549

Head Matter:
Martin LINDSTEDT, Republican Candidate for Governor of Missouri, also known as Mad Dog, Appellant, v. Matt BLUNT, Secretary of State and Chief Election Official of Missouri, also known as Runt, and Rival Republican Candidate for Governor of Missouri; Robin Carnahan, Secretary of State, Appellees.
No. 05-3173.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: June 13, 2006.
Decided: June 16, 2006.
Martin Lindstedt, Newton County Jail, Neosho, MO, for Appellant.
Trevor Steven Bossert, Attorney General’s Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellees.
Before ARNOLD, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The district court dismissed Martin Lindstedt's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action after concluding that Mr. Lindstedt had filed it for the improper purpose of harassment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b). The court then denied Mr. Lindstedt's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion for reconsideration. Mr. Lindstedt appeals. We find no abuse of discretion in either the dismissal of Mr. Lindstedt's complaint, or the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990) (reviewing Rule 11 determinations for abuse of discretion); Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs., 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir.1998) (reviewing denial of Rule 59(e) motions for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).
. The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.