Daniel Loring v. United States

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: March 10, 2021
• Docket: 20-2137
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 20-2137 ___________________________

Daniel Loring

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

United States of America; U.S. Department of Justice; Executive Office for United States Attorney’s General Counsel

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Southern ____________

Submitted: March 5, 2021 Filed: March 10, 2021 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM. Daniel Loring appeals following the district court’s1 entry of judgment against him in his action under the Federal Tort Claims Act. We conclude that the district court did not err in denying Loring’s motions for discovery, see Robinson v. Potter, 453 F.3d 990, 994-95 (8th Cir. 2006) (abuse of discretion review), or default judgment, see Doe v. Fort Zumwalt R-II Sch. Dist., 920 F.3d 1184, 1191 (8th Cir. 2019) (abuse of discretion review); and that the court properly disposed of Loring’s claims, see Smith v. Toyota Motor Corp., 964 F.3d 725, 728 (8th Cir. 2020) (de novo review of summary judgment); Hart v. United States, 630 F.3d 1085, 1088 (8th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). We also conclude that the district court properly denied Loring’s remaining motions; and we find no merit to Loring’s allegation of misconduct by the district court, see Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (judicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for finding of bias).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Loring’s pending motions. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.

-2-