Street v. Verizon South, Inc. , 257 F. App'x 618 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1569
PHYLLIS STREET,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
VERIZON SOUTH, INCORPORATED,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:04-cv-01400-CMH)
Submitted: November 16, 2007 Decided: December 14, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Phyllis Street, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan P. Harmon, Robyn
Suzanne Gray, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Phyllis Street appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on her motion for reconsideration. If a motion for
reconsideration is filed outside of the ten-day window required for
a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, it should be treated as a Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b) motion. See In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1, 2-3 (4th Cir.
1992). A motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) does not
bring up for review the merits of the underlying substantive
judgment, nor does it toll the period for filing an appeal of the
underlying judgment. Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.
257, 263 n.7 (1978). We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion
for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Holland, 214 F.3d
523, 527 (4th Cir. 2000).
Street’s motion, filed more than fifteen months after
final judgment, was grounded in allegations of mistake and
misrepresentation. A Rule 60(b) motion on those grounds shall be
made within a reasonable time and not more than one year after
judgment was entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (3). We
therefore find Street’s motion was untimely, and we affirm the
district court’s denial of the motion. See Street v. Verizon
South, Inc., No. 1:04-cv-01400 (E.D. Va. filed May 10, 2007;
entered May 15, 2007).* We dispense with oral argument because the
*
We note that Street did not timely appeal the district
court’s orders entered on December 20, 2005, and January 23, 2006,
so those orders are not before us to review.
- 2 -
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -