The district court 1 dismissed Martin Lindstedt’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action after concluding that Mr. Lindstedt had filed it for the improper purpose of harassment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b). The court then denied Mr. Lindstedt’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion for reconsideration. Mr. Lindstedt appeals. We find no abuse of discretion in either the dismissal of Mr. Lindstedt’s complaint, or the denial of his Rule 59(e) motion. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990) (reviewing Rule 11 determinations for abuse of discretion); Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs., 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (reviewing denial of Rule 59(e) motions for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).