HOFLAND v. LAHAYE et al

Filing 29

ORDER denying 27 Motion for Relief from Judgment; dismissing as moot 28 Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
RANDALL B. HOFLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD LAHAYE, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11-cv-00053-JAW

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME
On May 26, 2011, the Court entered Judgment in favor of the Defendants in
this case. On June 7, 2011, Randall B. Hofland moved for relief from judgment
pursuant to Rule 60(b) and moved to extend the time within which he must file a
notice of appeal. Mot. for Relief from J. (Docket # 27); Mot. to Extend Time (Docket
# 28). The Court carefully reviewed Mr. Hofland’s motion for relief from judgment
and concludes that it provides no basis to revisit the May 26, 2011 Judgment; the
Court DENIES Randall B. Hofland’s Motion for Relief from Judgment (Docket # 27).
Regarding the motion to extend, Rule 4(a)(4)((A)(vi) provides that if a party
files in the district court a Rule 60 motion within 28 days after judgment is entered,
the “time to file an appeal runs . . . from the entry of the order disposing of the
[motion].” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). By operation of the Rule, the appeal period
runs from the entry of this Order. Accordingly, the Court dismisses as moot Mr.
Holfand’s Motion to Extend Time (Docket # 28).

SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 9th day of June, 2011

2