LORING v. UNITED STATES (2021)

[Unpublished]

Daniel Loring appeals following the district court's ¹ entry of judgment against him in his action under the Federal Tort Claims Act. We conclude that the district court did not err in denying Loring's motions for discovery, see Robinson v. Potter, 453 F.3d 990, 994-95 (8th Cir. 2006) (abuse of discretion review), or default judgment, see Doe v. Fort Zumwalt R-II Sch. Dist., 920 F.3d 1184, 1191 (8th Cir. 2019) (abuse of discretion review); and that the court properly disposed of Loring's claims, see Smith v. Toyota Motor Corp., 964 F.3d 725, 728 (8th Cir. 2020) (de novo review of summary judgment); Hart v. United States, 630 F.3d 1085, 1088 (8th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). We also conclude that the district court properly denied Loring's remaining motions; and we find no merit to Loring's allegation of misconduct by the district court, see Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (judicial rulings alone almost never constitute valid basis for finding of bias).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Loring's pending motions.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.

PER CURIAM.