[Unpublished]
Daniel Loring appeals following the district courts
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 Lorings 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 Lorings 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 Lorings remaining motions; and we find no merit to Lorings 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 Lorings pending motions.
FOOTNOTES
1
. The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.
PER CURIAM.