Diane Williams v. Commonwealth of VA State Board of Elections, No. 12-2485 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2485 DIANE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS; NANCY RODRIQUES, in her Individual Capacity as Secretary of the State Board of Elections, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:11-cv-00863-HEH-DJN) Submitted: April 26, 2013 Decided: May 13, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Janipher W. Robinson, ROBINSON & GREENE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General, Wesley G. Russell, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, Guy W. Horsley, Jr., Special Assistant Attorney General, Ronald N. Regnery, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Diane Williams filed suit alleging that her former employer, the Commonwealth of Virginia State Board of Elections ( Board ), and Nancy Rodriques, the Executive Secretary of the Board (collectively violation of scheduling the order, Board ) law. the terminated Pursuant Board to filed her the its employment district motion court s for judgment on the remaining claims on August 17, 2012. in summary On August 28, 2012, the district court granted Williams motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) to extend the time period she had to respond to the Board s motion for summary judgment based on the death of her counsel s mother. The order extended the period to respond from August 30 to September 12, 2012. On September week deadline Civ. P. 60(b)(1) for judgment relief to had On September 26, the district court denied Williams R. summary the Board. Fed. granted after the under court one passed, motion district 19, from the the judgment granting summary judgment against her, and motion for leave to file a response out of time. both motions declining to find The district court denied that Williams excusable neglect for her attorney s missed deadline. established The court specifically found that the missed deadline was not because of the death of counsel s mother, noting that counsel filed several documents in the interim period 2 before it granted summary judgment and counsel s admission that she inadvertently failed to read the court s August 28 order granting her the relief she sought. The district court specifically analyzed Williams motion under Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs., 507 U.S. 380 (1993). On November 15, 2012, the district court denied Williams motion to reconsider filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) the court s September 26 order denying her Rule 60(b)(1) relief. The court s memorandum opinion noted that Williams motion failed to establish one of the three narrow grounds needed to obtain relief under Rule 59(e), citing to our opinion in Pac. Ins. v. Am. Nat l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998). On appeal, Williams alleges that the district court erred by denying her relief in its September 26 and November 15, 2012, orders. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. A district court s finding regarding excusable neglect is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, see United States v. Breit, 754 F.2d 526, 528-29 (4th Cir. 1985) (regarding neglect for extending appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4), but the burden of showing excusable neglect is on the party asserting it. Craig v. Garrison, 549 F.2d (superseded on other grounds). 306, 307 (4th Cir. 1977) We do not find the district court abused its discretion in denying Williams Rule 60(b)(1) motion or her motion to extend the time period she had to answer 3 the Board s motion for summary judgment. We also find no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying Williams Rule 59(e) motion. See Ingle ex rel. Estate of Ingle v. Yelton, 439 F.3d 191, 197 (4th Cir. 2006) (providing review standard). reconsideration of a judgment after its entry extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly. is The an Pac. Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at 403. Because our review of the record reveals no reversible error by the district court in denying Williams motions, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district See Williams v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 3:11-cv- court. 00863-HEH-DJN (E.D. Va. Sept. 26, 2012 & Nov. 15, 2012). We also deny Williams pending motion to remand the case to the district court and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
