Llewyln v. Medford
Llewyln v. Medford
Opinion
Charles Llewyln appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to reconsider its denial of relief under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2001). * We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Llewyln v. Medford, No. CA-01-54-MU (W.D.N.C. Jan. 29, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
To the extent Appellant seeks to appeal the Court’s order denying § 1983 relief, his December 10, 2001 notice of appeal is untimely as to that order, which was entered on the court’s docket on July 30, 2001. Appellant never sought an extension of time in which to appeal or reopening of the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or (a)(6). We have construed Appellant’s informal brief filed in this Court as a timely notice of appeal from the denial of reconsideration. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248, 112 S.Ct. 678, 116 L.Ed.2d 678 (1992).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.