Yolanda Bell v. Department of Defense

Fourth Circuit

Yolanda Bell v. Department of Defense

668 F. App'x 454

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 29, 2016

Docket15-2367

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 668 F. App'x 454 (Yolanda Bell v. Department of Defense) 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

Yolanda Bell v. Department of Defense, 668 F. App'x 454 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Yolanda Bell appeals the district court’s order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) motion to set aside the judgment against her and the order denying her motion for reconsideration. As to the Rule 60(b) order, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Rule 60(b) relief for the reasons stated by the district court. Bell v. Dep’t of Def.; No. 1:14-cv-00470-TSE-IDD (E.D. Va. Sept. 4,2015).

As to the order denying Bell’s motion for reconsideration, we dismiss the appeal of that order for lack of jurisdiction. “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). In a civil action in which a United States agency is a party, parties have 60 days after entry of the district court’s order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless a party obtains an extension or reopening of the appeal period, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (a)(6). “[A] bare notice of appeal should not be construed as a motion for extension of time, where no request for additional time is manifest,” even for appellants proceeding pro se. Washington v. Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899, 900-01 (4th Cir. 1989) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the order denying reconsideration was entered on October 9, 2015, but Bell did not file her *455 notice of appeal of that order until December 9, 2015 — 61 days after entry — and she has not sought an extension or reopening of the appeal period.

Accordingly, we affirm in part and dismiss in part. 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Yolanda Bell appeals the district court’s order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) motion to set aside the judgment against her and the order denying her motion for reconsideration. As to the Rule 60(b) order, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Rule 60(b) relief for the reasons stated by the district court. Bell v. Dep’t of Def.; No. 1:14-cv-00470-TSE-IDD (E.D. Va. Sept. 4,2015).

As to the order denying Bell’s motion for reconsideration, we dismiss the appeal of that order for lack of jurisdiction. “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). In a civil action in which a United States agency is a party, parties have 60 days after entry of the district court’s order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless a party obtains an extension or reopening of the appeal period, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (a)(6). “[A] bare notice of appeal should not be construed as a motion for extension of time, where no request for additional time is manifest,” even for appellants proceeding pro se. Washington v. Bumgarner, 882 F.2d 899, 900-01 (4th Cir. 1989) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the order denying reconsideration was entered on October 9, 2015, but Bell did not file her *455 notice of appeal of that order until December 9, 2015 — 61 days after entry — and she has not sought an extension or reopening of the appeal period.

Accordingly, we affirm in part and dismiss in part. 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

668 F. App'x 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yolanda-bell-v-department-of-defense-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack