Laura Hammett v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
• Decided: June 5, 2024
• Docket: 23-2638
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 23-2638 ___________________________

Laura Hammett

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC; Does, 1-99

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ___________________________

No. 23-3093 ___________________________

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ___________________________

No. 23-3432 ___________________________

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeals from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central ____________

Submitted: May 29, 2024 Filed: June 5, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________

Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Laura Hammett appeals the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment on her claims under state law and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, adverse grant of costs, and denial of her post-judgment motion to correct errors in a transcript.

We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of her post-judgment motion because the notice of appeal (NOA) as to that order was untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (NOA must be filed within 30 days after entry of order appealed); see also Dieser v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 440 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (timely NOA is

1 The Honorable Lee P. Rudofsky, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

-2- mandatory and jurisdictional). After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal in the other matters, we agree with the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned analysis of Hammett’s claims, see Kuntz v. Rodenburg LLP, 838 F.3d 923, 924 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review); and we discern no error in the grant of costs, see Dindinger v. Allsteel, Inc., 853 F.3d 414, 431 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review). As to Hammett’s arguments challenging the district court’s rulings on a host of other issues, we find no basis for reversal.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the denial of Hammett’s post-judgment motion, and otherwise affirm. We also deny her pending motions. ______________________________

-3-