-
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 06-4059 ___________ Eric Castaneira, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Ed Ligtenberg, Executive Director of * the South Dakota Board of Pardons and * [UNPUBLISHED] Paroles; South Dakota Board of * Pardons and Paroles; Robert D. Hofer; * Jerry Lammers; Dennis Kaemingk; Ted * J. Pins, Jr.; Cheryl Laurenz-Bogue; * Thomas Cihak; Mark Marshall, in their * individual capacities as members of the * South Dakota Board of Pardons and * Paroles, * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: February 4, 2008 Filed: February 5, 2008 ___________ Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Eric Castaneira appeals following the district court’s1 denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion in his
42 U.S.C. § 1983action. We agree with appellees that the only matter before us is the ruling on Castaneira’s postjudgment motion, which this court reviews for clear abuse of discretion. See Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of Black Hills,
141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998). The purpose of a Rule 59(e) motion is to correct manifest errors of fact or law or to offer newly discovered evidence, but not to introduce new evidence or legal theories, or to make arguments which could have been made before entry of judgment. See
id.In seeking Rule 59(e) relief, Castaneira merely presented an argument that he could have raised in his counseled summary judgment resistance, and he asserted that discovery should have occurred before summary judgment was granted, although his counsel had not sought a continuance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f), see Stanback v. Best Diversified Prods., Inc.,
180 F.3d 903, 911 (8th Cir. 1999) (party opposing summary judgment who believes he has not had adequate time for discovery must seek relief under Rule 56(f), which requires filing affidavit with trial court specifying facts further discovery might reveal). We thus find no basis for overturning the Rule 59(e) order. Accordingly we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also grant Castaneira’s motion to file his reply brief out of time. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Lawrence J. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. -2-
Document Info
Docket Number: 06-4059
Citation Numbers: 262 F. App'x 726
Filed Date: 2/5/2008
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 1/12/2023