United States v. Richard L. Campbell

1The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the
Honorable Jerry W. Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District
of Arkansas.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 00-1443
___________
Milton Kenneth Williams, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Arkansas.
Larry Norris, Director, Arkansas *
Department of Correction, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: October 4, 2000
Filed: October 12, 2000
___________
Before BEAM, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Milton Kenneth Williams appeals the district court’s1 order denying his “Motion
for Stay as a Matter of Law with Alternative Demand for a Jury Trial” and “Amended
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus . . . and Amended Motion to Reinstate and
Strike.” Williams’s motions were not timely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
59(e), nor did they set forth any of the enumerated grounds for relief under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1)-(6). Even if his motions could be construed as Rule
60(b) motions, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
them. See Watkins v. Lundell, 169 F.3d 540, 545 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct.
324 (1999); Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 169 (8th Cir. 1988) (standard of
review). Finally, we note that Williams has timely appealed only the denial of these
motions. See Sanders, 862 F.2d at 169 (“appeal from the denial of a motion made
under Rule 60(b) does not raise the underlying judgment for review”).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-- 2 of 2 --