From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spence v. Willis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION
Jun 18, 2021
No. 5:17-CV-272-D (E.D.N.C. Jun. 18, 2021)

Opinion

5:17-CV-272-D

06-18-2021

KIMBERLY T. SPENCE, and WILLIAM M. WINDSOR, Plaintiffs, v. CARL J. WILLIS, II, Defendant.


ORDER

JAMES C. DEVER III, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On December 18, 2017, this court dismissed Kimberly T. Spence and William M. Windsor's claims and closed the case. See [D.E. 20]. On February 26, 2018, plaintiff Spence (“Spence”) appealed [D.E. 22]. On May 4, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal. See Spence v. Willis, 721 Fed.Appx. 290, 291 (4th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (unpublished); [D.E. 24]. On July 10, 2018, Spence filed another notice of appeal [D.E. 30]. On January 17, 2019, the Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal. See Spence v. Willis, 748 Fed.Appx. 510, 510-11 (4th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (unpublished); [D.E. 35], On October 10, 2019, Spence filed another notice of appeal and asked to reopen the case [D.E. 39]. On October 17, 2019, the Fourth Circuit denied the motion to reopen the case. See Spence v. Willis, No. 18-1790 (4th Cir. Oct 17, 2019) [Doc. 105].

On May 7, 18, and 21, 2021, Spence moved to reopen the case [D.E. 55, 56, 57]. To the extent Spence seeks reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59, the motion is untimely. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e); cf. Zinkand v. Brown, 478 F.3d 634, 637 (4th Cir. 2007); Bogart v. Chapell, 396 F.3d 548, 555 (4th Cir. 2005); Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998); Hughes v. Bedsole, 48 F.3d 1376, 1382 (4th Cir. 1995).

To the extent Spence seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the court denies the motion as baseless. See Fed. R Civ. P. 60(b); Aikens v. Ingram. 652 F.3d 496, 500-01 & n.3 (4th Cir. 2011) (enbanc); Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 412 n.12 (4th Cir. 2010); Nat'l Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. Gray, 1 F.3d 262, 264 (4th Cir. 1993); cf. Luxama v. McHugh, 675 Fed.Appx. 272, 273 (4th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (unpublished).

The court DENIES as baseless plaintiffs motions to reopen the case [D.E. 55, 56, 57]. The case remains closed.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Spence v. Willis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION
Jun 18, 2021
No. 5:17-CV-272-D (E.D.N.C. Jun. 18, 2021)
Case details for

Spence v. Willis

Case Details

Full title:KIMBERLY T. SPENCE, and WILLIAM M. WINDSOR, Plaintiffs, v. CARL J. WILLIS…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION

Date published: Jun 18, 2021

Citations

No. 5:17-CV-272-D (E.D.N.C. Jun. 18, 2021)