Filed: Aug. 27, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 04-1067 _ Hillmar I. Bittner, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. State of Minnesota; Mike Hatch, * Attorney General, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. * _ Submitted: August 24, 2004 Filed: August 27, 2004 _ Before MELLOY, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Hillmar-Ivan Bittner appeals the district court’s1 denial of his motion to reconsider the dismissal of his
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 04-1067 _ Hillmar I. Bittner, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. State of Minnesota; Mike Hatch, * Attorney General, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. * _ Submitted: August 24, 2004 Filed: August 27, 2004 _ Before MELLOY, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Hillmar-Ivan Bittner appeals the district court’s1 denial of his motion to reconsider the dismissal of his c..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 04-1067
___________
Hillmar I. Bittner, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of Minnesota.
State of Minnesota; Mike Hatch, *
Attorney General, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: August 24, 2004
Filed: August 27, 2004
___________
Before MELLOY, LAY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Hillmar-Ivan Bittner appeals the district court’s1 denial of his motion to
reconsider the dismissal of his complaint challenging the constitutionality of a
Minnesota child-custody decree. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude
the district court did not abuse its discretion as Bittner’s motion did not allege any
cognizable grounds for postjudgment relief or otherwise show exceptional
1
The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
circumstances warranting relief. See Sanders v. Clemco Indus.,
862 F.2d 161, 169
(8th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-2-