Davis v. Arvest Bank

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION :

ANTHONY DAVIS PLAINTIFF

No. 4:25-cv-34-DPM

ARVEST BANK DEFENDANT

ORDER Davis asks the Court to reconsider its screening Order and to vacate its Judgment. The Court construes his motion, Doc. 8, as one for relief under Rule 60(b). Soon after he moved for reconsideration, Davis filed a notice of appeal. Because Davis moved for reconsideration within the time allowed for filing a motion under Rule 59, and before he appealed, the Court must rule on his motion for reconsideration so his appeal can proceed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i). In his motion, Davis offers more federal statutes and regulations for the Court to consider. But he still hasn't identified any that provide him a plausible claim for relief against Arvest. Plus, even if Davis’s new authorities could afford him the relief he seeks, he didn’t bring them to the Court's attention in his amended complaint. His motion therefore doesn’t present any exceptional circumstances justifying the extraordinary remedy he seeks here. Watkins v. Lundell, 169 F.3d 540, 544 (8th Cir. 1999). Davis’s motion, Doc. 8, is denied.

So Ordered. SAirjpastald D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge B Aprwl 2025

-2-