Court Opinion

ID: 2786695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-03-17 16:00:52.260223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:05:18.264000
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 14-3125
                         ___________________________

                              Louis Jonathan Cutwright

                        lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

                                            v.

Sean Crawford; Sheryl Dahm; Tracy Dietsch; Cindy Wolmutt; William Sperfslage

                       lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees
                                        ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                  for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines
                                  ____________

                             Submitted: March 16, 2015
                               Filed: March 17, 2015
                                   [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

Before BYE, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Louis Cutwright appeals after the district court1 dismissed his pro se 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 complaint preservice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and denied his post-judgment

      1
       The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Southern District of Iowa.
motion for reconsideration. Upon careful review, we find no basis for reversal. See
Cooper v. Schriro, 189 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (de novo review
of § 1915A dismissal); see also Ackerland v. United States, 633 F.3d 698, 701 (8th
Cir. 2011) (appellate court typically construes self-styled motion for reconsideration
as Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment, or as Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion for relief from judgment); Miller v. Baker Implement Co., 439 F.3d 407, 414
(8th Cir. 2006) (appellate court reviews denial of motions under Rule 59(e) or 60(b)
for abuse of discretion).

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

                                         -2-