PER CURIAM. Jeffrey Hill appeals after the district court adversely granted
summary judgment in his consolidated actions asserting due process and Thirteenth Amendment claims arising from his conditional admission to the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith. We conclude that defendants’ motion for
summary judgment was appropriately granted, see Beaulieu v. Ludeman, 690 F.3d 1017, 1024 (8th Cir. 2012) (grant of
summary judgment is reviewed de novo), because there was no genuine issue as to whether Hill was deprived of his liberty or property, as required for a due process claim, see Creason v. City of Washington, 435 F.3d 820, 824 (8th Cir. 2006) (discussing requirements for due process claim), or subjected to slavery or involuntary servitude within the meaning of the Thirteenth Amendment, see United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 942, 108 S.Ct. 2751, 101 L.Ed.2d 788 (1988) (discussing meaning of words “slavery” and “involuntary servitude” in Thirteenth Amendment).
We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hill’s motions for sanctions, see Exec. Air Taxi Corp. v. City of Bismarck, 518 F.3d 562, 571 (8th Cir. 2008) (denial of motion for sanctions is reviewed for abuse of discretion), or his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), see In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Prod. Liab. Litig., 496 F.3d 863, 866 (8th Cir. 2007) (denial of Rule 60(
b) motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion; Rule 60(
b) authorizes relief in only most exceptional cases). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Hill’s pending motion for sanctions. . The Honorable P.K. Holmes, III, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.