Ubl v. Savin Corporation

Fourth Circuit

Ubl v. Savin Corporation

217 F. App'x 237

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 22, 2007

Docket06-1617

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 217 F. App'x 237 (Ubl v. Savin Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ubl v. Savin Corporation, 217 F. App'x 237 (4th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Thomas M. Ubl seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) motion. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the joint appendix and find no reversible error. Because we find Ubl’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion, brought nearly eight years after the order he seeks to be reopened was issued, was untimely, we affirm the district court’s order on those grounds. Because we affirm the district court’s order on modified grounds, we decline to address whether the audit conducted by the Government constitutes an “alternate remedy” for purposes of the Civil False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(5) (2000). See United States v. Smith, 395 F.3d 516, 518-19 (4th Cir.2005) (‘We are not limited to evaluation of the grounds offered by the district court to support its decision, but may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record.”). 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 AS MODIFIED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Thomas M. Ubl seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) motion. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the joint appendix and find no reversible error. Because we find Ubl’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion, brought nearly eight years after the order he seeks to be reopened was issued, was untimely, we affirm the district court’s order on those grounds. Because we affirm the district court’s order on modified grounds, we decline to address whether the audit conducted by the Government constitutes an “alternate remedy” for purposes of the Civil False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(5) (2000). See United States v. Smith, 395 F.3d 516, 518-19 (4th Cir.2005) (‘We are not limited to evaluation of the grounds offered by the district court to support its decision, but may affirm on any grounds apparent from the record.”). 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 AS MODIFIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 F. App'x 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ubl-v-savin-corporation-ca4-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack