Aaron Danielson v. Albertus Human, No. 16-2125 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2125 AARON KEVEN DANIELSON, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALBERTUS JOHANNES HUMAN, Defendant - Appellant, and JAN PETRUS HUMAN; H-POWER AMERICAS, INC.; H-POWER WORLDWIDE, LLC; H-POWER ENERGY STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; JOHN DOES 1100, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-00840-FDW-DSC) Submitted: January 31, 2017 Before GREGORY, Judges. Chief Judge, Decided: and KEENAN Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. February 10, 2017 and WYNN, Circuit John McKinley Kirby, II, LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. KIRBY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Aaron Keven Danielson, Appellee Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Albertus Johannes Human appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his untimely Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of its entry of default judgment. district court’s finding that Human’s untimely for abuse of discretion. Rule We review the 60(b) motion was Moses v. Joyner, 815 F.3d 163, 166 (4th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, __ U.S.L.W.__ (U.S. Aug. 5, 2016) (No. 16-5507). A district court “may set aside a final default judgment under Rule 60(b),” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c), and such a motion must be filed within “a reasonable time,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). A movant seeking relief from a judgment under Rule 60(b) must make a threshold showing of “timeliness, a meritorious defense, a lack of unfair prejudice exceptional circumstances.” Auto. Ins. Co., 993 F.2d to the opposing party, and Dowell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. 46, 48 (4th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Park Corp. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 812 F.2d 894, 896 (4th Cir. 1987) (holding that a movant must show that his motion is timely, that he has a meritorious defense, and that there would be no unfair prejudice and that, “[i]f the moving party makes such a showing, he must then satisfy one or more of the six grounds for relief set forth in Rule 60(b)”). 3 We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Human’s Rule 60(b) motion, filed more than 2 years after entry of judgment and more than 10 months after an enforcement Accordingly, dispense we with contentions are affirm oral action the filed, was court’s district argument adequately was judgment. because presented in the the facts untimely. We and legal 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.
