Summary
affirming dismissal of ADA claim, because "Title III of the ADA does not provide for private actions seeking damages" and that was "the sole remedy that [plaintiff] requested"
Summary of this case from Viera v. City of N.Y.Opinion
No. 13-2548
12-09-2013
David Anthony Stebbins Plaintiff - Appellant v. Legal Aid of Arkansas Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison
[Unpublished]
Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM.
David Stebbins appeals the district court's denial of his motion to set aside judgment on the ground of judicial bias. After careful review, we hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because no exceptional circumstances warranted relief from the judgment, see Harley v. Zoesch, 413 F.3d 866, 871 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard for granting Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion), and Stebbins did not make a showing of judicial bias by pointing to adverse rulings in other cases he has brought, see Am. Prairie Constr. Co. v. Hoich, 560 F.3d 780, 789-90 (8th Cir. 2009) (movant bears substantial burden of proving judicial partiality); see also In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1290-91, 1295 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (court has discretion to place reasonable filing restrictions on litigant who flagrantly and repeatedly abuses judicial process by filing numerous meritless lawsuits).
The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.