Brian Collum v. PayPal, No. 12-3915 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case. Plaintiff's notice of appeal was timely only as to the district court's final postjudgment order essentially denying Rule 60(b) relief and imposing restriction on future filings; the district court did not abuse its discretion in entering the order. [ May 13, 2013
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-3915 ___________________________ Brian T. Collum lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. PayPal; Kellie Cain lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha ____________ Submitted: May 9, 2013 Filed: May 14, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Brian Collum appeals after the district court1 dismissed his complaint without prejudice, and denied his numerous postjudgment motions. Upon careful review, we 1 The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. first conclude that Collum s notice of appeal (NOA) was timely only as to the district court s final postjudgment order, which essentially denied him relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), and imposed certain restrictions on Collum s future filings in the district court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (30 days to file NOA in civil case), (a)(4)(A)(vi) (time to file appeal runs for all parties from entry of order disposing of motion for relief under Rule 60 if motion is filed no later than 28 days after judgment is entered). We further find no reason to disturb the district court s final postjudgment order. See Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 169-70 (8th Cir. 1988) (review of denial of Rule 60(b) motion presents only question whether district court abused its discretion in denying relief from judgment; if movant fails to present reasons not previously considered by district court, that alone is controlling factor against granting motion); cf. In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1290-91, 1293 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (endorsing proposition that court may impose reasonable restrictions that limit or place conditions upon future filings). We thus affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
