Daniel v. Hoechst Marion

Fifth Circuit

Daniel v. Hoechst Marion

114 F. App'x 640

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 10, 2004

Docket04-20106

StatusUnpublished

This text of 114 F. App'x 640 (Daniel v. Hoechst Marion) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daniel v. Hoechst Marion, 114 F. App'x 640 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Yvette Daniel (“Daniel”) appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for relief from judgment. Daniel, however, is actually attempting to appeal once again the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment. We previously dismissed her appeal for lack of prosecution and our circuit has a “firm rule of not allowing a 60(b) motion to substitute for an appeal.” In re Air Crash at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, 852 F.2d 842, 844 (5th Cir.1988). See also Lancaster v. Presley, 35 F.3d 229, 231 (5th Cir.1994). Moreover, Daniel has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying her relief from judgment. See Tollett v. City of Kemah, 285 F.3d 357, 369 (5th Cir.2002). Finally, we find that her motion was untimely because it was filed after the one year deadline set out in Fed.R.CivP. 60(b). Accordingly, we DISMISS Daniel’s appeal. Daniel’s motion for judge appointed mediation is DENIED AS MOOT.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Yvette Daniel (“Daniel”) appeals the district court’s order denying her motion for relief from judgment. Daniel, however, is actually attempting to appeal once again the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment. We previously dismissed her appeal for lack of prosecution and our circuit has a “firm rule of not allowing a 60(b) motion to substitute for an appeal.” In re Air Crash at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, 852 F.2d 842, 844 (5th Cir.1988). See also Lancaster v. Presley, 35 F.3d 229, 231 (5th Cir.1994). Moreover, Daniel has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying her relief from judgment. See Tollett v. City of Kemah, 285 F.3d 357, 369 (5th Cir.2002). Finally, we find that her motion was untimely because it was filed after the one year deadline set out in Fed.R.CivP. 60(b). Accordingly, we DISMISS Daniel’s appeal. Daniel’s motion for judge appointed mediation is DENIED AS MOOT.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 F. App'x 640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-v-hoechst-marion-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack