Tracy Wade v. US

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cv-00608 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999562600].. [14-1500]

Appeal: 14-1500

Doc: 29

Filed: 04/10/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1500

TRACY E. WADE,
Brian Wade,

Administratrix

of

the

Estate

of

Richard

Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-00608)

Submitted:

March 30, 2015

Decided:

April 10, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew C. Lindsay, Richard D. Lindsay, TABOR LINDSAY &
ASSOCIATES, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
R. Booth
Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Fred B. Westfall, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1500

Doc: 29

Filed: 04/10/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Appellant Tracy E. Wade appeals the district court’s orders
granting

judgment

to

the

Defendant

after

a

bench

trial

and

denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion to alter or amend the
judgment.

The

Appellee

originally

contended

that

we

lacked

jurisdiction over the appeal because it was not timely filed.
We previously ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs
addressing whether judgment was entered on a separate document
in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a).

We now affirm.

To comply with the Rule 58 separate document requirements,
“the essentials of a judgment or order [must be] set forth in a
written

document

memorandum.”

separate

from

the

court’s

opinion

or

Hughes v. Halifax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 823 F.2d 832,

835 (4th Cir. 1987).

Because the district court did not enter

its judgment on a separate document, we have jurisdiction.

See

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii); United States v. Little, 392
F.3d

671,

680

&

n.15

(4th

Cir.

2004);

Caperton

v.

Beatrice

Pocahontas Coal Co., 585 F.2d 683, 690-91 (4th Cir. 1978).
Turning to the merits, we review “judgments stemming from a
bench

trial

reviewed

for

under

a

clear

reviewed de novo.”
1062747,

*4

(4th

mixed
error,

standard:
whereas

factual
conclusions

findings
of

law

are
are

Makdessi v. Fields, __ F.3d __, 2015 WL

Cir.

Mar.

quotation marks omitted).

12,

2015)

(citation

and

internal

“In cases in which a district court’s
2

Appeal: 14-1500

Doc: 29

Filed: 04/10/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

factual findings turn on assessments of witness credibility or
the weighing of conflicting evidence during a bench trial, such
findings are entitled to even greater deference.”
AT&T, Inc., 709 F.3d 343, 350 (4th Cir. 2013).

Helton v.

We review the

denial of a Rule 59 motion for abuse of discretion.

Jones v.

Southpeak Interactive Corp. of Del., 777 F.3d 658, 674 (4th Cir.
2015) (citation omitted); Wilkins v. Montgomery, 751 F.3d 214,
220 (4th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted).
We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, and we
conclude

that

discretion.

the

district

court

did

not

err

or

abuse

its

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court.

See Wade v. United States, No. 3:12-cv-

00608 (S.D. W. Va. Apr. 28, 2014; Feb. 20, 2014).

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

3