Esperanza Guerrero v. Charlie Deane

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999194309-2] Originating case number: 1:09-cv-01313-JCC-TRJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999262740].. [13-2013]

Appeal: 13-2013

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/19/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2013

ESPERANZA GUERRERO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
JUAN GUERRERO; JJG,
MUNGUIA; KG, Minor,

Minor;

MG,

Minor;

JG,

Minor;

MARIA

Plaintiffs,
v.
CHARLIE T. DEANE, in his official capacity; DAVID L. MOORE,
in his official and individual capacity; LUIS POTES, in his
official and individual capacity; ADAM HURLEY, in his
official and individual capacity; ROES 1-5, in their
official and individual capacities; PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY;
MATTHEW CAPLAN, in his official and individual capacity;
KAREN MUELHAUSER, in her official and individual capacity;
DOES 1-5, in their official and individual capacities,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
DOES 1-6, in their official and individual
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT

capacities;

Defendants
THE OFFICE OF
WILLIAM COUNTY

HOUSING

AND

COMMUNITY

Party-in-Interest.

DEVELOPMENT,

PRINCE

Appeal: 13-2013

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/19/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:09-cv-01313-JCC-TRJ)

Submitted:

December 17, 2013

Decided: December 19, 2013

Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Esperanza Guerrero, Appellant Pro Se.
Jeffrey Notz, Megan
Eileen
Kelly,
COUNTY
ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE,
Prince
William,
Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 13-2013

Doc: 11

Filed: 12/19/2013

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Esperanza Guerrero appeals the district court’s June
20, 2013 order denying multiple post-judgment motions and its
July

17,

2013

order

reconsideration. *

denying

her

subsequent

motion

for

On review of the record, we conclude that the

district court did not err in denying Guerrero’s untimely motion
for judgment as a matter of law, Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b); see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) (“A court may not extend the time to act
under Rule 50(b) . . . .”).

Further, the district court did not

abuse its discretion in denying relief pursuant to either Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

See Robinson v. Wix

Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard of
review for Rule 59(e)); MLC Auto., 532 F.3d at 277 (standard of
review for Rule 60(b)).

Accordingly, although we grant leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the orders in question.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

*

the

facts

and

We

legal

Guerrero’s motion for reconsideration, filed within
twenty-eight days of the district court order denying multiple
post-judgment motions, tolls the time to appeal.
Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi).
Thus, Guerrero’s notice of appeal, filed
within
thirty
days
of
the
denial
of
her
motion
for
reconsideration, was timely as to both the July 17, 2013 order
denying the motion for reconsideration and the June 20, 2013
order. Id.; MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269,
278-79 (4th Cir. 2008).

3

Appeal: 13-2013

Doc: 11

contentions

are

Filed: 12/19/2013

adequately

Pg: 4 of 4

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4