Eric Shields v. FedEx Kinko, No. 12-2440 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Employment Discrimination. District court did not err in denying reconsideration as none of the post-judgment documents plaintiff filed warranted relief from the judgment. [ October 23, 2012
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-2440 ___________________________ Eric Bernard Shields lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. FedEx Kinko; Bryant Coleman, Store Manager; Jeff Perrin, Assistant Store Manager lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis ____________ Submitted: October 12, 2012 Filed: October 25, 2012 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. More than one year after the district court1 denied Eric Shields s employmentdiscrimination suit as frivolous, Shields filed new papers, including a motion for 1 The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. reconsideration. The filings included a variety of information, such as lists of government officials, biblical quotes, and selected federal statutes. The district court denied reconsideration, and Shields timely appeals. Having carefully reviewed the record, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration, because nothing in Shields s filings demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting relief from the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6); Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 169-70 (8th Cir. 1988); Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001) (appeal from denial of Rule 60(b) motion does not present underlying judgment for review; movant must demonstrate exceptional circumstances to warrant Rule 60(b)(6) relief), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 975 (2001), reh g denied, 534 U.S. 1102 (2002). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
