Esperanza Guerrero v. Charlie Deane, No. 13-2013 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2013 ESPERANZA GUERRERO, Plaintiff - Appellant, and JUAN GUERRERO; JJG, MUNGUIA; KG, Minor, Minor; MG, Minor; JG, Minor; MARIA Plaintiffs, v. CHARLIE T. DEANE, in his official capacity; DAVID L. MOORE, in his official and individual capacity; LUIS POTES, in his official and individual capacity; ADAM HURLEY, in his official and individual capacity; ROES 1-5, in their official and individual capacities; PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY; MATTHEW CAPLAN, in his official and individual capacity; KAREN MUELHAUSER, in her official and individual capacity; DOES 1-5, in their official and individual capacities, Defendants - Appellees, and DOES 1-6, in their official and individual PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT capacities; Defendants THE OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUNTY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY Party-in-Interest. DEVELOPMENT, PRINCE Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-01313-JCC-TRJ) Submitted: December 17, 2013 Decided: December 19, 2013 Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Esperanza Guerrero, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Notz, Megan Eileen Kelly, COUNTY ATTORNEY S OFFICE, Prince William, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Esperanza Guerrero appeals the district court s June 20, 2013 order denying multiple post-judgment motions and its July 17, 2013 order reconsideration. * denying her subsequent motion for On review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Guerrero s untimely motion for judgment as a matter of law, Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) ( A court may not extend the time to act under Rule 50(b) . . . . ). Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief pursuant to either Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for Rule 59(e)); MLC Auto., 532 F.3d at 277 (standard of review for Rule 60(b)). Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the orders in question. dispense with oral argument because * the facts and We legal Guerrero s motion for reconsideration, filed within twenty-eight days of the district court order denying multiple post-judgment motions, tolls the time to appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Thus, Guerrero s notice of appeal, filed within thirty days of the denial of her motion for reconsideration, was timely as to both the July 17, 2013 order denying the motion for reconsideration and the June 20, 2013 order. Id.; MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 278-79 (4th Cir. 2008). 3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4