Aaron Danielson v. Albertus Human

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cv-00840-FDW-DSC. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000021269]. Mailed to: Aaron Danielson. [16-2125]

Appeal: 16-2125

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/10/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2125

AARON KEVEN DANIELSON,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALBERTUS JOHANNES HUMAN,
Defendant - Appellant,
and
JAN PETRUS HUMAN; H-POWER AMERICAS, INC.; H-POWER WORLDWIDE,
LLC; H-POWER ENERGY STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; JOHN DOES 1100,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-00840-FDW-DSC)

Submitted:

January 31, 2017

Before GREGORY,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided:

and

KEENAN

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

February 10, 2017

and

WYNN,

Circuit

Appeal: 16-2125

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/10/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

John McKinley Kirby, II, LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. KIRBY, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant.
Aaron Keven Danielson, Appellee
Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-2125

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/10/2017

Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Albertus Johannes Human appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his untimely Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of its entry of default judgment.
district

court’s

finding

that

Human’s

untimely for abuse of discretion.

Rule

We review the

60(b)

motion

was

Moses v. Joyner, 815 F.3d

163, 166 (4th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W.__
(U.S. Aug. 5, 2016) (No. 16-5507).
A district court “may set aside a final default judgment
under Rule 60(b),” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c), and such a motion must
be filed within “a reasonable time,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).
A movant seeking relief from a judgment under Rule 60(b) must
make a threshold showing of “timeliness, a meritorious defense,
a

lack

of

unfair

prejudice

exceptional circumstances.”
Auto.

Ins.

Co.,

993

F.2d

to

the

opposing

party,

and

Dowell v. State Farm Fire & Cas.
46,

48

(4th

Cir.

1993)

(internal

quotation marks omitted); see also Park Corp. v. Lexington Ins.
Co., 812 F.2d 894, 896 (4th Cir. 1987) (holding that a movant
must show that his motion is timely, that he has a meritorious
defense, and that there would be no unfair prejudice and that,
“[i]f

the

moving

party

makes

such

a

showing,

he

must

then

satisfy one or more of the six grounds for relief set forth in
Rule 60(b)”).

3

Appeal: 16-2125

Doc: 12

We

Filed: 02/10/2017

conclude

that

the

Pg: 4 of 4

district

court

did

not

abuse

its

discretion in finding that Human’s Rule 60(b) motion, filed more
than 2 years after entry of judgment and more than 10 months
after

an

enforcement

Accordingly,
dispense

we

with

contentions

are

affirm
oral

action
the

filed,

was

court’s

district

argument

adequately

was

judgment.

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

untimely.
We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4