United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 21-2226 ___________________________

Daniel Coleman

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Minneapolis Public Schools

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________

Submitted: February 14, 2022 Filed: February 17, 2022 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

In this employment action, Daniel Coleman appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment and denial of his post-judgment motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.

1 The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. We first conclude we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Coleman’s post- judgment motion. See Miles v. Gen. Motors Corp., 262 F.3d 720, 722-23 (8th Cir. 2001) (this court lacks jurisdiction to consider challenge to denial of post-judgment motion for new trial where movant failed to file amended notice of appeal as to that decision). After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we further conclude the adverse grant of summary judgment was proper for the reasons articulated by the district court. See EEOC v. Prod. Fabricators, Inc., 763 F.3d 963, 969 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Coleman’s pending motion. ______________________________

-2-