Case Name: Ronald E. BYERS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Appellant, v. EDINA COURIERS, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, and Stanley C. Olsen, Jr., individually and as member of Edina Couriers, LLC, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-12
Citations: 475 F. App'x 638
Docket Number: No. 12-1214
Parties: Ronald E. BYERS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Appellant, v. EDINA COURIERS, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, and Stanley C. Olsen, Jr., individually and as member of Edina Couriers, LLC, Appellees.
Judges: Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 638–639

Head Matter:
Ronald E. BYERS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Appellant, v. EDINA COURIERS, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, and Stanley C. Olsen, Jr., individually and as member of Edina Couriers, LLC, Appellees.
No. 12-1214.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: June 25, 2012.
Filed: July 12, 2012.
Ranald E. Byers, Wayzata, MN, pro se.
Kathleen R. Barrow, Houston, TX, David J. Duddleston, Jackson & Lewis, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Ronald Byers appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint and denial of his post-judgment motion, in his pro se action alleging that defendants filed fraudulent tax documents with the Internal Revenue Service.
Following careful de novo review, we agree with the district court that dismissal was appropriate, and we find no basis for reversal. See Carlson v. Wiggins, 675 F.3d 1134, 1138 (8th Cir.2012) (standard of review); see also See Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b) (in alleging fraud, party must state with particularity circumstances constituting fraud); Wellons, Inc. v. T.E. Ibberson Co., 869 F.2d 1166, 1168 (8th Cir.1989) (describing circumstances in which application of collateral estoppel is appropriate). We also conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Byers's post-judgment motion. See United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review; motions to alter or amend judgment serve limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.