Lonnie Snelling appeals the denial of his motion to amend or to enter a nunc pro tunc judgment for an order reviving a judgment. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the *559reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Snelling v. Hemphill, 568 S.W.3d 558 (2019)
Feb. 26, 2019
·
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR
·
ED 106817
568 S.W.3d 558
Lonnie SNELLING, Appellant,
v.
Willie C. HEMPHILL, Jr., et al., Respondents.
ED 106817
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.
Filed: February 26, 2019
Lonnie Snelling, Pro Se, 1518 79th Street, St. Louis, MO 63130, for appellant.
Ellsworth D. Ware III, 4144 Lindell Blvd., Suite 126, St. Louis, MO 63108, for respondent.
Before: Kurt S. Odenwald, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J., and Colleen Dolan, J.
ORDER