United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 18-2308
                        ___________________________

                              David Anthony Stebbins

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

                                           v.

          State of Arkansas; Amy Jones; Arkansas Rehabilitation Services

                      lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
                                      ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                  for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison
                                  ____________

                             Submitted: May 15, 2019
                               Filed: May 24, 2019
                                  [Unpublished]
                                  ____________

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
                        ____________

PER CURIAM.

    David Anthony Stebbins appeals from the order of the District Court1 granting
summary judgment to defendants in his action under the Americans with Disabilities

      1
      The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.
Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Viewing the facts and inferences
in the light most favorable to Stebbins, we conclude that the defendants were entitled
to summary judgment. See Vandewarker v. Cont’l Res., Inc., 

, 629 (8th
Cir. 2019) (standard of review). We have also considered Stebbins’s challenges to
numerous other orders, and we conclude that they do not warrant reversal.2 We
affirm.
                        ______________________________




      2
       We have not considered matters Stebbins advances for the first time on appeal.
See Stone v. Harry, 

, 914 (8th Cir. 2004) (declining to consider a pro se
appellant’s “additional allegations or arguments raised on appeal that were not
discussed by the district court”).


                                         -2-