Frederick Pitchford v. John E. Potter
This text of 133 F. App'x 357 (Frederick Pitchford v. John E. Potter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Frederick L. Pitchford appeals following the district court’s 1 orders dismissing his case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and denying his motion for reconsideration. We affirm.
We lack jurisdiction to review the Rule 41(b) dismissal order, because the notice of appeal is untimely as to it. See United States v. Stute Co., 402 F.3d 820, 822 (8th Cir.2005) (timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional). We have jurisdiction to review the denial of Pitchford’s motion to reconsider, and having carefully reviewed the record, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of reconsideration. See Middleton v. McDonald, 388 F.3d 614, 616 (8th Cir.2004) (standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
133 F. App'x 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frederick-pitchford-v-john-e-potter-ca8-2005.