Joseph Guthrie v. Anthony Flanagan, No. 09-1716 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1716 JOSEPH F. GUTHRIE; KELLY PITTMAN GUTHRIE, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. ANTHONY EMERSON FLANAGAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cv-00479-REP) Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 31, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Emerson Flanagan, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph F. Guthrie, Kelly Pittman Guthrie, Appellees Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Anthony Flanagan seeks to appeal the district court s orders entering judgment in favor of the Appellees on their claims of legal malpractice and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from that judgment. lack jurisdiction judgment against over the Flanagan district and we We conclude that we court s affirm order the entering court s order denying Flanagan s Rule 60(b) motion. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). is mandatory and jurisdictional. This appeal period Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 208-13 (2007); see also United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009). Moreover, a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) does not bring up for review the merits of the underlying substantive judgment, nor does it toll the period for filing an appeal of the underlying judgment. Browder v. Dir., Dep t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7 (1978). Here, the district court s judgment was entered on the docket on August 22, 2008. Although Flanagan initially filed a timely notice of appeal of that order, he voluntarily dismissed that appeal. Following the 2 district court s denial of Flanagan s Rule 60(b) motion on May 20, 2009, Flanagan filed a notice of appeal on June 18, 2009. Although this notice is timely as to the district court s May 20, 2009 order, it is well out of time Accordingly, as as to the Flanagan court s failed August to file 22, a 2008 timely judgment. notice of appeal of the district court s August 22, 2008 judgment, and failed to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, this court does not have jurisdiction over that order. With respect to the court s order denying Flanagan s Rule 60(b) motion, we confine our review to the issues raised in See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). the informal brief. Flanagan s brief alleges no error committed by the district court in denying his Rule 60(b) motion. order. legal before Accordingly, we affirm the district court s We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
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.
