Ramona Ortiz v. James Potter, No. 08-2019 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2019 RAMONA ORTIZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JAMES E. POTTER, Postmaster General; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (1:07-cv-01073-RAJ-TAJ) Submitted: January 15, 2009 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Circuit Decided: January 21, 2009 Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ramona Ortiz, Appellant Assistant United States Appellees. Pro Se. Attorney, Catherine DeRoever Wood, Alexandria, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: 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. * and find no reversible district court s order. error. We have reviewed the record Accordingly, we affirm the 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, 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2366 (2007). Accordingly, only the order denying reconsideration is currently before this court. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.