Case Name: George GADD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, United States Department of Justice; Michele M. Leonhart, Acting Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-03
Citations: 392 F. App'x 503
Docket Number: No. 10-1500
Parties: George GADD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, United States Department of Justice; Michele M. Leonhart, Acting Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, Appellees.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 392
Pages: 503–504

Head Matter:
George GADD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, United States Department of Justice; Michele M. Leonhart, Acting Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration, Appellees.
No. 10-1500.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 30, 2010.
Filed: Sept. 3, 2010.
George Ross Gadd, Little Rock, AR, pro se.
Clarence Daniel Stripling, Assistant U.S. Attorney. U.S. Attorney’s Office, Little Rock, AR, for Appellees.
Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
George Gadd appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in his civil action. In his complaint, as subsequently amended, Gadd asserted claims of failure to accommodate a disability, and retaliation, under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701, 791, and 794; failure to maintain records, improper disclosure of medical records, and failure to produce records upon request, under the Right to Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a; and failure to produce records, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). On appeal, Gadd argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, and he challenges the court's denial of his motions to reconsider and for recusal, and its handling of the record and his discovery-related requests.
After careful de novo review, viewing the evidence and all fair inferences from it in the light most favorable to Gadd, see Buboltz v. Residential Advantages, Inc., 523 F.3d 864, 867-68 (8th Cir.2008), we conclude that summary judgment was proper. In addition, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gadd's motion to reconsider, see Christensen v. Qwest Pension Plan, 462 F.3d 913, 920 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review for Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion); Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir.2001) (standard of review for Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion), in denying his recusal motion, see Neal v. Wilson, 112 F.3d 351, 357 & n. 6 (8th Cir.1997) (disapproving decision to wait until district judge had issued unfavorable ruling before moving for recu-sal), in maintaining certain record documents under seal, cf. Meyer Goldberg, Inc. v. Fisher Foods, Inc., 823 F.2d 159, 161 (6th Cir.1987) (request to lift or modify order sealing documents is left to sound discretion of trial court), or in handling discovery-related matters, see Sheets v. Butera, 389 F.3d 772, 780 (8th Cir.2004) (review of discovery rulings is very deferential; rulings generally will not be overturned absent gross abuse of discretion resulting in fundamental unfairness).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.