From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Keyes v. Kauffman

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jan 24, 2008
261 F. App'x 542 (4th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 07-7214.

Submitted: January 17, 2008.

Decided: January 24, 2008.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:07-cv-01149-JFM).

Darnell Alonzo Keyes, Appellant Pro Se.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


Darnell Alonzo Keyes appeals the district court's order denying as untimely his motion for reconsideration of its order dismissing his breach of contract action against Defendants. We find that although the district court only considered the motion as one filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), it should have been construed instead as one filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) because it was filed more than ten days after entry of judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), 60; In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1, 2-3 (4th Cir. 1992). Because Keyes' motion failed to demonstrate any grounds that would entitle him to relief pursuant to Rule 60(b), however, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the motion. See Heyman v. M.L. Mktg. Co., 116 F.3d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1997) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. See Keyes v. Kauffman, No. 1:07-cv-01149-JFM (D.Md. August 3, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Keyes v. Kauffman

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Jan 24, 2008
261 F. App'x 542 (4th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

Keyes v. Kauffman

Case Details

Full title:Darnell Alonzo KEYES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rena KAUFFMAN; Pearl Vision…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Jan 24, 2008

Citations

261 F. App'x 542 (4th Cir. 2008)