Court Opinion

ID: 9882152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 16:00:56.688956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:57.721533
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 23-1501
                         ___________________________

                                   Phillip H. March

                         lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

                                            v.

    Small Business Administration; Isabel Guzman, in her official capacity as
    Administrator of the Small Business Administration; Janet L. Yellen, in her
   official capacity as Secretary of the State Treasury; United States of America

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
                                        ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis
                                   ____________

                             Submitted: October 2, 2023
                               Filed: October 5, 2023
                                   [Unpublished]
                                   ____________

Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
                        ____________

PER CURIAM.

      Phillip March appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his pro se civil action
as moot. After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we

      1
       The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
conclude the district court did not err in dismissing March’s complaint. See Sears v.
United States Trs. (In re AFY), 734 F.3d 810, 816 (8th Cir. 2013) (de novo review of
dismissal for mootness). We further conclude the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying March’s motion for reconsideration. See Julianello v. K-V
Pharm. Co., 791 F.3d 915, 922 (8th Cir. 2015) (denial of reconsideration reviewed
for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                        ______________________________

                                         -2-