Filed: May 08, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 08-1611 _ Allison Chapman, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the U.S. Bank, N.A., a Minnesota * District of Minnesota. Corporation, formerly known as * Heritage Bank Inc., former Montana * [UNPUBLISHED] Corporation, * * Appellee. * _ Submitted: May 6, 2009 Filed: May 8, 2009 _ Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Allison Chapman appeals the district court’s1 denial of
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 08-1611 _ Allison Chapman, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the U.S. Bank, N.A., a Minnesota * District of Minnesota. Corporation, formerly known as * Heritage Bank Inc., former Montana * [UNPUBLISHED] Corporation, * * Appellee. * _ Submitted: May 6, 2009 Filed: May 8, 2009 _ Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Allison Chapman appeals the district court’s1 denial of ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-1611
___________
Allison Chapman, *
*
Appellant, *
*
v. * Appeal from the United States
* District Court for the
U.S. Bank, N.A., a Minnesota * District of Minnesota.
Corporation, formerly known as *
Heritage Bank Inc., former Montana * [UNPUBLISHED]
Corporation, *
*
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: May 6, 2009
Filed: May 8, 2009
___________
Before BYE, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Allison Chapman appeals the district court’s1 denial of her motion for
reconsideration. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
reconsideration, because Chapman raised arguments that she could have raised in a
timely appeal. See Sanders v. Clemco Indus.,
862 F.2d 161, 169-70 (8th Cir. 1988)
1
The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
(standard of review; court was not required to grant Rule 60(b) motion where it raised
ground for relief that could have been raised in timely appeal). Accordingly, we
affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-