CDI Energy Services v. West River Pumps

1The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
Nos. 07-3652, 08-1252/2094
___________
United States of America, *
*
Appellee, *
* Appeals from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Arkansas.
Larry Thomas, Husband; Rosie Lee *
Thomas, Wife, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellants. *
___________
Submitted: May 7, 2009
Filed: May 22, 2009
___________
Before RILEY, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Larry and Rosie Lee Thomas appeal from the district court’s 1 adverse grant of
summary judgment as well as its denials of their post-judgment motions to quash a
writ of assistance and for other relief. On appeal, they argue that the district court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Upon de novo review, see Myers v. Richland
County, 429 F.3d 740, 745 (8th Cir. 2005), we conclude that the court had jurisdiction

-- 1 of 2 --

2In particular, we find no merit to appellants’ jurisdictional argument that is
apparently based on Pigford v. Glickman, 185 F.R.D. 82 (D.D.C. 1999), aff’d, 206
F.3d 1212 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
-2-
under 28 U.S.C. § 1345.2 Finally, we find no basis for reversing the district court’s
denials of appellants’ post-judgment motions. Cf. Lara v. Sec’y of Interior, 820 F.2d
1535, 1542-43 (9th Cir. 1987) (district court may issue orders pending appeal to
enforce judgment).
Accordingly, we affirm in each of these three consolidated appeals. See 8th Cir.
R. 47B. Appellants’ pending motion for contempt is denied.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --