O'Grady v. Zurich Holding Co. of America

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1720
ELISE M. O’GRADY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ZURICH HOLDING COMPANY OF AMERICA; ZURICH
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY; FARMERS INSURANCE
GROUP,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 04-1939
ELISE M. O’GRADY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ZURICH HOLDING COMPANY OF AMERICA; ZURICH
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY; FARMERS INSURANCE
GROUP,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge.
(CA-03-2116-MJG)
Submitted: December 10, 2004 Decided: January 28, 2005
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
No. 04-1720, affirmed; No. 04-1939, affirmed in part and vacated in
part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elise M. O’Grady, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Walter Kraus, MILES &
STOCKBRIDGE, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Elise M. O’Grady appeals
the district court’s orders (1) entering judgment in favor of
Zurich Holding Company of America, Zurich American Insurance
Company, and Farmers Insurance Group (“Defendants”) on her claims
of disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (No. 04-1720); (2) denying her motion filed
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (No. 04-1939); and (3) denying her
motion filed under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), in which she sought an
extension of time to appeal from the summary judgment order
(No. 04-1939). We affirm in part and vacate in part.
We first address the propriety of the district court’s
order finding that O’Grady failed to demonstrate excusable neglect
warranting an extension of the appeal period. Parties in a civil
action in which the United States is not a party have thirty days
after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to
note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district
court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5).
This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v.
Dir, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United
States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).
Here, the district court entered its judgment in favor of
Defendants on April 28, 2004. O’Grady timely filed her Rule 59(e)
motion on May 12, 2004, the tenth day after entry of judgment. See
- 3 -
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). O’Grady’s timely Rule
59(e) motion tolled the appeal period until the district court
disposed of the motion on July 12, 2004, see Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(4)(A)(iv), and the premature notice of appeal she filed became
effective on that date. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i).
Because we conclude that the notice of appeal was timely filed, we
vacate the district court’s order denying O’Grady’s request for an
extension of time to appeal.
Having concluded that we have jurisdiction over the
district court’s order entering judgment in favor of Defendants, we
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We
therefore affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See
O’Grady v. Zurich Holding Co. of Am., No. CA-03-2116-MJG (D. Md.
Apr. 28, 2004). Nor do we find any abuse of discretion in the
district court’s denial of O’Grady’s Rule 59(e) motion. See United
States ex rel. Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d
284, 290 (4th Cir. 2002) (stating standard of review), cert.
denied, 538 U.S. 1012 (2003). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of
Rule 59(e) relief for the reasons stated by the district court.
See O’Grady v. Zurich Holding Co. of Am., No. CA-03-2116-MJG
(D. Md. July 12, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
- 4 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
No. 04-1720, AFFIRMED
No. 04-1939, AFFIRMED IN PART AND
VACATED IN PART
- 5 -