Joseph Guthrie v. Anthony Flanagan

Filing 920091231

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1716

JOSEPH F. GUTHRIE; KELLY PITTMAN GUTHRIE, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. ANTHONY EMERSON FLANAGAN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00479-REP)

Submitted:

December 15, 2009

Decided:

December 31, 2009

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Emerson Flanagan, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph F. Guthrie, Kelly Pittman Guthrie, Appellees Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Anthony Flanagan seeks to appeal the district court's orders entering judgment in favor of the Appellees on their

claims of legal malpractice and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from that judgment. lack jurisdiction against over the district and we We conclude that we order entering order

court's the

judgment

Flanagan

affirm

court's

denying Flanagan's Rule 60(b) motion. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court's final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). is mandatory and jurisdictional. This appeal period

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S.

205, 208-13 (2007); see also United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009). Moreover, a motion for

reconsideration under Rule 60(b) does not bring up for review the merits of the underlying substantive judgment, nor does it toll the period for filing an appeal of the underlying judgment. Browder v. Dir., Dep't of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7 (1978). Here, the district court's judgment was entered on the docket on August 22, 2008. Although Flanagan initially filed a

timely notice of appeal of that order, he voluntarily dismissed that appeal. Following the 2 district court's denial of

Flanagan's Rule 60(b) motion on May 20, 2009, Flanagan filed a notice of appeal on June 18, 2009. Although this notice is

timely as to the district court's May 20, 2009 order, it is well out of time as as to the court's failed August to file 22, a 2008 judgment. notice of

Accordingly,

Flanagan

timely

appeal of the district court's August 22, 2008 judgment, and failed to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, this court does not have jurisdiction over that order. With respect to the court's order denying Flanagan's Rule 60(b) motion, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Flanagan's brief

alleges no error committed by the district court in denying his Rule 60(b) motion. order. legal before Accordingly, we affirm the district court's

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. AFFIRMED

3