Vincent Cox, Sr. v. Sickle Cell Anemia Foundation, No. 15-2774 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Gruender, Benton and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil procedure. The district court properly remanded the case to state court as the notice of removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446(b)(3). [ January 07, 2016
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-2774 ___________________________ Cox Contracting Vincent Cox, Sr. lllllllllllllllllllll Appellant Vincent Cox, Jr. v. Sickle Cell Anemia Foundation Inc. of Arkansas lllllllllllllllllllll Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock ____________ Submitted: January 5, 2016 Filed: January 8, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Vincent Cox, Sr. (Cox) sought to remove to federal court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1443, a civil action brought in state court in October 2013 against Cox, Vincent Cox, Jr., and Cox Contracting, relating to a property lien. The district court1 held that his notice of removal was untimely, and remanded the case. The court also denied Cox’s motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), and Cox appeals. We have jurisdiction to review the district court’s remand order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). We hold that the district court properly remanded the case because the notice of removal was untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3) (notice of removal must be filed within 30 days of receipt of amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that case is or has become removable); Neal v. Wilson, 112 F.3d 351, 354-55 (8th Cir. 1997) (affirming remand of § 1443 removal on untimeliness grounds). We further hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cox’s Rule 60(b) motion. See Noah v. Bond Cold Storage, 408 F.3d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (denial of Rule 60(b) motion reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -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.
