Darlene Davis v. Comcast Corporation

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to remand case [999777456-2] Originating case number: 1:13-cv-01513-GBL-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999864577]. Mailed to: D Davis. [16-1097, 16-1169]

Appeal: 16-1097

Doc: 22

Filed: 06/23/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1097

DARLENE J. DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, INC.; JOE MINOR; DAN SIMSON,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
DAN THOMAS; RICO WADE,
Defendants.

No. 16-1169

DARLENE J. DAVIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, INC.; JOE MINOR; DAN SIMSON,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
DAN THOMAS; RICO WADE,
Defendants.

Appeal: 16-1097

Doc: 22

Filed: 06/23/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:13-cv-01513-GBL-IDD)

Submitted:

June 21, 2016

Decided:

June 23, 2016

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darlene J. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy McCormack, BALLARD
SPAHR,
LLP,
Baltimore,
Maryland;
Constantinos
George
Panagopoulos, BALLARD SPAHR, LLP, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1097

Doc: 22

Filed: 06/23/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Darlene J. Davis appeals the
district court’s orders denying relief on her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60
motion to set aside judgment and her subsequently filed revised
motion to set aside judgment and motion for recusal.
reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

We have

Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *

Davis

v. Comcast Corp., No. 1:13-cv-01513-GBL-IDD (E.D. Va. filed Jan.
13, 2016 & entered Jan. 14, 2016; Jan. 28, 2016).
Davis’ motion to remand in No. 16-1097.

We deny

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

*

We note that Davis’ Rule 60(b) motions were filed
approaching the one-year deadline for filing such motions. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c) (“A motion under Rule 60(b) must be made
within a reasonable time, [and on certain grounds] no more than
a year after the entry of the judgment of the judgment or order
. . . .”).
We need not, however, rest our decision on this
basis.

3