Esperanza Guerrero v. Charlie Deane , 548 F. App'x 86 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2013
ESPERANZA GUERRERO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
JUAN GUERRERO; JJG, Minor; MG, Minor; JG, Minor; MARIA
MUNGUIA; KG, Minor,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CHARLIE T. DEANE, in his official capacity; DAVID L. MOORE,
in his official and individual capacity; LUIS POTES, in his
official and individual capacity; ADAM HURLEY, in his
official and individual capacity; ROES 1-5, in their
official and individual capacities; PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY;
MATTHEW CAPLAN, in his official and individual capacity;
KAREN MUELHAUSER, in her official and individual capacity;
DOES 1-5, in their official and individual capacities,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
DOES 1-6, in their official and individual capacities;
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT
Defendants
THE OFFICE OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, PRINCE
WILLIAM COUNTY
Party-in-Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:09-cv-01313-JCC-TRJ)
Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 19, 2013
Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Esperanza Guerrero, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Notz, Megan
Eileen Kelly, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Prince William,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Esperanza Guerrero appeals the district court’s June
20, 2013 order denying multiple post-judgment motions and its
July 17, 2013 order denying her subsequent motion for
reconsideration. * On review of the record, we conclude that the
district court did not err in denying Guerrero’s untimely motion
for judgment as a matter of law, Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b); see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) (“A court may not extend the time to act
under Rule 50(b) . . . .”). Further, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying relief pursuant to either Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Robinson v. Wix
Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard of
review for Rule 59(e)); MLC Auto., 532 F.3d at 277 (standard of
review for Rule 60(b)). Accordingly, although we grant leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the orders in question. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
*
Guerrero’s motion for reconsideration, filed within
twenty-eight days of the district court order denying multiple
post-judgment motions, tolls the time to appeal. Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Thus, Guerrero’s notice of appeal, filed
within thirty days of the denial of her motion for
reconsideration, was timely as to both the July 17, 2013 order
denying the motion for reconsideration and the June 20, 2013
order. Id.; MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269,
278-79 (4th Cir. 2008).
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4