David Librace v. Nancy A. Berryhill, No. 17-2249 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Bowman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. District court did not abuse its discretion in denying claimant's Rule 59(e) and 60(a) motions. [ January 23, 2018
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 17-2249 ___________________________ David Librace lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena ____________ Submitted: January 16, 2018 Filed: January 24, 2018 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. David Librace appeals from the order of the District Court1 affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. The only orders properly before this Court on appeal are the orders granting the Commissioner’s motion for relief filed under Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and denying Librace’s motion to alter or amend filed under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in making those rulings. See Keller v. City of Fremont, 719 F.3d 932, 946 (8th Cir. 2013) (reviewing the district court’s ruling on a Rule 60(a) motion for an abuse of discretion); Sipp v. Astrue, 641 F.3d 975, 981 (8th Cir. 2011) (reviewing the district court’s ruling on a Rule 59(e) motion for an abuse of discretion). We affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable D.P. Marshall Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Patricia S. Harris, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -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.
