Ortiz v. Potter
Ortiz v. Potter
Opinion
Ramona Ortiz appeals the district court’s order denying her Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of its previous order granting Defendants summary judgment on her employment discrimination claims. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. See Ortiz v. Potter, No. 1:07-cv-01073-RAJ-TAJ (E.D.Va. Aug. 5, 2008). 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.
On appeal, Ortiz attempts to challenge the order of the district court granting Defendants summary judgment on her substantive claims. However, we lack jurisdiction to consider that decision because Ortiz filed her motion for reconsideration more than ten days after the summary judgment order was entered, and thus did not extend the period for appealing that order. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 2366, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). Accordingly, only the order denying reconsideration is currently before this court.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.