Filed: Oct. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 15-2100 _ James Melvin Lewis lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Navient Solutions, Inc., formerly known as Sallie Mae, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: October 7, 2015 Filed: October 14, 2015 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. James Lewis brought this pro se ac
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 15-2100 _ James Melvin Lewis lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Navient Solutions, Inc., formerly known as Sallie Mae, Inc. lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee _ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City _ Submitted: October 7, 2015 Filed: October 14, 2015 [Unpublished] _ Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. James Lewis brought this pro se act..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-2100
___________________________
James Melvin Lewis
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Navient Solutions, Inc., formerly known as Sallie Mae, Inc.
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: October 7, 2015
Filed: October 14, 2015
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
James Lewis brought this pro se action against Navient Solutions, Inc.,
asserting violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, among other claims. He appeals
from the orders of the District Court1 granting summary judgment in favor of Navient
and denying his post-judgment motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
We have carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal,
and we conclude that summary judgment was properly granted. See Anderson v.
EMC Mortg. Corp.,
631 F.3d 905, 906 (8th Cir. 2011) (reviewing the grant of
summary judgment de novo). We further conclude that the denial of post-judgment
relief was not an abuse of discretion. See Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v.
P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills,
141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard
of review).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
1
The Honorable Brian C. Wimes, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
-2-