Milligan v. Equity Residential Properties Management Corp.

94 F. App'x 991

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 22, 2004
• Docket: 04-1263
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Johnny and Carolyn Milligan appeal from the order of the district court denying their motion for relief from judgment filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3). Finding no error, we affirm.

This court reviews the denial of a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) for an abuse of discretion. Heyman v. M.L. Mktg. Co., 116 F.3d 91, 94 (4th Cir.1997). To succeed on a Rule 60(b) motion, a movant first “‘must show that his motion is timely, that he has a meritorious defense to the action, and that the opposing party would not be unfairly prejudiced by having the judgment set aside.’ ” National Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. Gray, 1 F.3d 262, 264 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting Park Corp. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 812 F.2d 894, 896 (4th Cir.1987)). After meeting these three threshold considerations, 1 the movant must then satisfy one of the six grounds for relief listed in Rule 60(b). Id. at 266. The Milligans alleged fraud and misconduct as the basis for relief.

Despite the Milligans’ repeated claims to the contrary, our review of the record fails to disclose evidence of the fraud or misconduct claimed by the Milligans. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Milligans’ motion for relief from judgment. We affirm the judgment of the district court. 2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

1 . A showing of "exceptional circumstances" sometimes is noted as a fourth threshold. See National Credit Union, 1 F.3d at 264 (citing Werner v. Carbo, 731 F.2d 204, 207 (4th Cir. 1984)).

2 . To the extent the Milligans again seek to appeal the district court’s orders dated March 14, 2003, and June 19, 2003, their March 1, 2004, notice of appeal is not timely. Thus, we have no jurisdiction to review those orders. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a).