Bob J. Settle, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Tim Hendrix, et al. Defendants-appellees, 956 F.2d 278 (10th Cir. 1992)

Appellant Settle appeals the district court's dismissal of his claim construed by that court to be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because Settle failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we have no jurisdiction. We therefore must dismiss this appeal.

The district court entered final judgment dismissing Settle's case on June 6, 1991. On June 11, Settle filed a "Motion for Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Specify [sic] Grounds for Granting Defendants Motion to Dismiss, and Amendment of Judgment." This motion could be treated as arising under either Rule 52(b) or Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In either case, under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (4), the time to appeal began to run upon the district court's denial of Settle's motion, which occurred on July 11, 1991. On July 18, Settle filed a "Motion to Reconsider the Court's Order of July 11, 1991, Amendment of Judgment and Sanctions." However this motion was not filed within ten days of the entry of judgment as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b) & 59(e). Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) requires a "timely motion." Therefore, the time to appeal was not tolled or reset. Needham v. White Laboratories, Inc., 639 F.2d 394, 397 (7th Cir. 1981); Yates v. Behrend, 280 F.2d 64, 65-66 (D.C. Cir. 1960); Charles Wright, Arthur Miller, Edward Cooper & Eugene Gressman, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3950, at 364 (1977) ("Nor does a motion to reconsider the district court's denial of one or more of the four specified motions operate to suspend further running of the appeal periods; the losing party is entitled to but one suspension."). Settle filed his notice of appeal on August 16, which was not within thirty days of July 11, as required by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (1). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as untimely.

The appellees' motion for sanctions on appeal is denied.

It is so ORDERED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.