United States v. Robert L. Shepherd

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 01-3457
___________
Ron Seaworth, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* District of Minnesota.
Bob Pearson; Pearson Autobody, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellees. *
___________
Submitted: February 28, 2002
Filed: March 5, 2002
___________
Before LOKEN, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
In 1999, Ron Seaworth brought an employment action against Bob Pearson and
Pearson Autobody alleging that they illegally discriminated against him on the basis
of his religious beliefs. The underlying facts are described in Seaworth v. Pearson,
203 F.3d 1056, 1057 (8th Cir), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 895 (2000), in which we
affirmed the dismissal of that action as meritless. Some months after we issued our
decision, Seaworth filed a motion for relief from judgment on the basis of fraud, and
other circumstances justifying relief, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3)
and (6). He also moved for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(g).

-- 1 of 2 --

1 The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District
of Minnesota.
-2-
The district court 1 denied his motions, and having carefully reviewed the record, we
affirm.
Assuming, without deciding, that Seaworth’s request for relief under Rule
60(b)(3) is timely, Seaworth offered nothing to show that Pearson or his attorney did
anything to prevent Seaworth from fully and fairly presenting his case, see Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b)(3); Greiner v. City of Champlin, 152 F.3d 787, 789 (8th Cir. 1998), nor
did he show exceptional circumstances otherwise justifying relief from the final
judgment, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6); Brooks v. Ferguson-Florissant Sch. Dist., 113
F.3d 903, 904-905 (8th Cir. 1997). Also, nothing in Seaworth’s filings indicated any
conduct justifying Seaworth’s request for sanctions. See Fed R. Civ. P. 56(g); Fort
Hill Builders, Inc. v. Nat’l Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 866 F.2d 11, 16 (1st Cir. 1989).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-- 2 of 2 --