Paul Emerson v. Constance Cleveland

438 F. App'x 525

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: November 10, 2011
• Docket: 11-2084
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Paul Leslie Emerson, on behalf of his minor children, appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grants of motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, in this civil rights action. Having carefully reviewed the record and Emerson’s arguments for reversal, we find no basis for overturning the district court’s well-reasoned decisions to grant summary judgment to certain defendants, see Reed v. City of St Charles, Mo., 561 F.3d 788, 790-91 (8th Cir.2009) (standard of review); or to dismiss the claims against other defendants for failure to state a claim, see McAdams v. McCord, 584 F.3d 1111, 1113 (8th Cir.2009) (standard of review); Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.2004) (pro se complaints must be liberally construed, but must allege sufficient facts to support claims advanced). We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of reconsideration, whether Emerson brought his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), see Brooks v. Ferguson-Florissant Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 903, 905 (8th Cir.1997), or under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), see Perkins v. U.S. West Commc’ns, 138 F.3d 336, 340 (8th Cir.1998); or in the court’s denial of leave to “rejoin” certain defendants dismissed early in the case, see Hammer v. City of Osage Beach, Mo., 318 F.3d 832, 844 (8th Cir.2003) (discussing circumstances where leave to amend should be denied). The district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1 . The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.