Aaron Danielson v. Albertus Human , 676 F. App'x 198 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2125
AARON KEVEN DANIELSON,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALBERTUS JOHANNES HUMAN,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
JAN PETRUS HUMAN; H-POWER AMERICAS, INC.; H-POWER WORLDWIDE,
LLC; H-POWER ENERGY STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; JOHN DOES 1-
100,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-00840-FDW-DSC)
Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 10, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John McKinley Kirby, II, LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. KIRBY, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Aaron Keven Danielson, Appellee
Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Albertus Johannes Human appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his untimely Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of its entry of default judgment. We review the
district court’s finding that Human’s Rule 60(b) motion was
untimely for abuse of discretion. Moses v. Joyner, 815 F.3d
163, 166 (4th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W.__
(U.S. Aug. 5, 2016) (No. 16-5507).
A district court “may set aside a final default judgment
under Rule 60(b),” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c), and such a motion must
be filed within “a reasonable time,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
A movant seeking relief from a judgment under Rule 60(b) must
make a threshold showing of “timeliness, a meritorious defense,
a lack of unfair prejudice to the opposing party, and
exceptional circumstances.” Dowell v. State Farm Fire & Cas.
Auto. Ins. Co., 993 F.2d 46, 48 (4th Cir. 1993) (internal
quotation marks omitted); see also Park Corp. v. Lexington Ins.
Co., 812 F.2d 894, 896 (4th Cir. 1987) (holding that a movant
must show that his motion is timely, that he has a meritorious
defense, and that there would be no unfair prejudice and that,
“[i]f the moving party makes such a showing, he must then
satisfy one or more of the six grounds for relief set forth in
Rule 60(b)”).
3
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in finding that Human’s Rule 60(b) motion, filed more
than 2 years after entry of judgment and more than 10 months
after an enforcement action was filed, was untimely.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4