Marilynn McRae v. Donnie Harrison

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 8, 2024
• Docket: 23-1794
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1794 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/08/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1794

MARILYNN M. MCRAE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DONNIE HARRISON, Sheriff,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

SAMUEL B. HIGDON; GENE D. BUTLER,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:17-cv-00023-FL)

Submitted: January 9, 2024 Decided: April 8, 2024

Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marilynn M. McRae, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1794 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/08/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Marilynn M. McRae appeals the district court’s order denying her motions for relief

from the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), (b), 79. * Limiting our review to the

issues raised in the informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170,

177 (4th Cir. 2014), we have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion in the

district court’s denial of those motions, see Aikens, 652 F.3d at 501 (stating standard of

review); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (establishing one-year limit on filing of Rule 60(b)(1)-(3)

motions). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. McRae v. Harrison, No. 5:17-

cv-00023-FL (E.D.N.C. May 31, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* To the extent McRae seeks to challenge the district court’s prior grant of summary judgment to Appellee Donnie Harrison on McRae’s claims, or the court’s denial of her May 2022 Rule 60(b) motion, those orders are not properly before us in this appeal. See United States v. Cannady, 63 F.4th 259, 266 (4th Cir. 2023) (discussing mandate rule); Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) (“[A]n appeal from denial of Rule 60(b) relief does not bring up the underlying judgment for review.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”).