Opinion

Spence v. Spence

Court
District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Filed
Jun 21, 2021
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 24.6%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

WESTERN DIVISION

No. 5:17-CV-272-D

KIMBERLY T. SPENCE, and )

WILLIAM M. WINDSOR, )

Plaintiffs,

v. ORDER

CARL J. WILLIS, I,

Defendant.

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 F. App’x 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(unpublished); [D.E. 24].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 F. App’x 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510-11 (4th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (unpublished); [D.E. 35].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

(4th Cir. 201 1) (en banc); Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 412 n.12 (4th

Cir. 2010); Nat’ Credit Union Admin. Bd. v. Gray, 1 F.3d 262, 264 (4th Cir. 1993); cf. Luxama v.

McHugh, 675 F. App’x 272, 273 (4th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (unpublished).

The court DENIES as baseless plaintiff's motions to reopen the case [D.E. 55, 56, 57]. The

case remains closed.

SO ORDERED. This _!€ day of June 2021.

<4 . A anv UU

J S C. DEVER II

United States District Judge ‘

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.