Daniel Loring v. United States of America

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 20-2137
___________________________
Daniel Loring
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
United States of America; U.S. Department of Justice; Executive Office for United
States Attorney’s General Counsel
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Southern
____________
Submitted: March 5, 2021
Filed: March 10, 2021
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 2 --

Daniel Loring appeals following the district court’s1 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 (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.
______________________________
1The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the
District of South Dakota.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --