United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ________ No. 96-3730 ___________ Mary V. Meckel, * * Appellant, * * v. * * University of Arkansas, at * Monticello, * * Appeal from the United States Appellees, * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Jack Lassiter, Executive * Vice Chancellor, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees, * * John N. Short, Chairman, * Division of Social Sciences * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: May 2, 1997 Filed: May 20, 1997 ___________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM.

Mary V. Meckel appeals from the final order entered in the District Court1 for the Eastern District of Arkansas denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) motion for relief from judgment. The

The Honorable James Maxwell Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. district court found that Meckel's proffered expert testimony did not constitute newly discovered evidence which could not have been timely discovered by due diligence. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Mitchell v. Shalala, 48 F.3d 1039, 1041 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review; movant must show due diligence, among other things). Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-2-