Smith v. Mallick

D.C. Circuit

Smith v. Mallick

10 F. App'x 1

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 22, 2001

DocketNo. 00-7208

StatusPublished

This text of 10 F. App'x 1 (Smith v. Mallick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Mallick, 10 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the District Court and on the briefs of the parties. The issues have been accorded full consideration by the Court and occasion no need for a published opinion. See D.C. Cik. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the District Court’s decision be affirmed. Malhck appeals only the District Court’s denial of relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We review the District Court’s decision not to vacate or amend its earlier judgment for abuse of discretion, and “an appeal from denial of Rule 60(b) relief does not bring up the underlying judgment for review.” Browder v. Director, Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978). Because Mallick’s arguments address only the merits of the underlying judgment and not the District Judge’s failure to provide Rule 60(b) relief, we affirm.

The clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the District Court and on the briefs of the parties. The issues have been accorded full consideration by the Court and occasion no need for a published opinion. See D.C. Cik. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the District Court’s decision be affirmed. Malhck appeals only the District Court’s denial of relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). We review the District Court’s decision not to vacate or amend its earlier judgment for abuse of discretion, and “an appeal from denial of Rule 60(b) relief does not bring up the underlying judgment for review.” Browder v. Director, Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978). Because Mallick’s arguments address only the merits of the underlying judgment and not the District Judge’s failure to provide Rule 60(b) relief, we affirm.

The clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 F. App'x 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-mallick-cadc-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack