Greene v. Logisticare Solutions, Inc.

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT September 21, 2017
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
CEDRIC GREENE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 17-4109
(D.C. No. 2:16-CV-00755-BSJ)
LOGISTICARE SOLUTIONS, INC., (D. Utah)
Defendant - Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Cedric Greene brought suit against Logisticare Solutions, Inc., alleging
negligent infliction of emotional distress. On July 18, 2016, the district court
dismissed Greene’s complaint sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Greene then filed a notice of appeal on April 14, 2017. We abated Greene’s appeal
and remanded the case to the district court with directions to treat the notice of
appeal as a motion to reopen time to file an appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The
district court denied Greene’s motion to reopen as untimely. Accordingly, we
*
After examining Greene’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has
determined unanimously that oral argument wouldn’t materially assist in the
determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The
case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment
isn’t binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. But it may be cited for its persuasive value. See
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
dismissed Greene’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Greene then filed a second Rule
4(a)(6) motion to reopen, which the district court also denied. Greene now timely
appeals that decision.
We generally review a district court’s denial of a Rule 4(a)(6) motion for
abuse of discretion. Ogden v. San Juan Cty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). But
Greene makes no effort to explain whether—let alone how—the district court abused
its discretion in denying his second Rule 4(a)(6) motion. Thus, we affirm. See Nixon
v. City and Cty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir. 2015) (“[T]he first task of
an appellant is to explain to us why the district court’s decision was wrong.”);
Johnson v. Johnson, 466 F.3d 1213, 1215 (10th Cir. 2006) (affirming ruling that went
unchallenged on appeal).
Entered for the Court
Nancy L. Moritz
Circuit Judge
2