Gertrude Hamilton v. Dayco Products, LLC
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
GERTRUDE CORETTA FENNELL HAMILTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DAYCO PRODUCTS, LLC; MARK IV INDUSTRIES, Defendants Appellees, and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:07-cv-02782-PMD)
February 18, 2010
February 23, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gertrude Coretta Fennell Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se. Susanna Hancock Murray, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Gertrude district court's Coretta adverse Fennell grant of Hamilton summary appeals judgment from in the her
employment discrimination action, and its denial of her motion for reconsideration. is timely only as As a preliminary matter, Hamilton's appeal to the denial of her motion for
reconsideration, which motion properly is construed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); see
generally Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978). As to the district court's denial of that motion, we find no abuse of discretion. See MLC Automotive, LLC v. Town of S.
Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of Hamilton's motion for reconsideration, and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Hamilton's appeal from the underlying judgment. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?