Christopher Prosser v. Govinarajulu Nagaldinne ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                     United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 09-2833
    ___________
    Christopher Lee Prosser,                *
    *
    Appellant,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                * District Court for the
    * Eastern District of Missouri.
    Laurain C. Hendricks, Doctor, M.D.;     *
    Elisabeth Conley, D.O.; Correctional    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Medical Services, Inc.; Larry Crawford; *
    Al Luebbers; Govinarajulu               *
    Nagaldinne, M.D., Doctor,               *
    *
    Appellees.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: March 25, 2010
    Filed: April 12, 2010
    ___________
    Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Inmate Christopher Prosser appeals an order of the District Court1 denying his
    motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that sought
    relief from two orders of the court: a May 2008 order granting two defendants'
    1
    The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United Stated District Judge for the Eastern
    District of Missouri.
    motion to dismiss, and a January 2009 order granting Prosser's motion to voluntarily
    dismiss the remaining defendants without prejudice.
    We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion, see MIF
    Realty L.P. v. Rochester Assocs., 
    92 F.3d 752
    , 755 (8th Cir. 1996), and we find no
    abuse of discretion in this case. As to the May 2008 dismissal order, Prosser sought
    Rule 60(b) relief by challenging the substantive basis for the dismissal, but this
    challenge should have been raised in a direct appeal of that order. See Sanders v.
    Clemco Indus., 
    862 F.2d 161
    , 170 (8th Cir. 1988). As to the January 2009 voluntary
    dismissal, Prosser did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting relief
    from the consequences of his own motion, see Arnold v. Wood, 
    238 F.3d 992
    , 998
    (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    534 U.S. 975
    (2001), and we note that he is free to refile his
    claims against the voluntarily dismissed defendants if he so wishes.
    Accordingly, we affirm, and we deny the pending motions.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-2833

Judges: Melloy, Bowman, Smith

Filed Date: 4/12/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024