Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-16-02405/USCOURTS-ca3-16-02405-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

DLD-033 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 16-2405

____________

MICHAEL OSEI,

Appellant,

v.

TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, of the Commonwealth System 

of Higher Education; DR. MIA K. LUEHRMANN, 

Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies; ANDREA C. 

SEISS, Senior Associate Dean of Students; DR. ROBERT 

J. LEVIS, Department of Chemistry, Chairman & 

Professor; DR. GRANT KROW, Professor of Chemistry; 

DR. ANNE WEAVER HART, Individually and in her 

official capacity as President of Temple University; 

BRIAN C. FOLEY, Individually and in his official capacity 

as Vice Chair, University Disciplinary Committee, 

Temple University; DR. KEITH GUMERY, individually 

and in his official capacity as Vice Chair, University 

Disciplinary Committee, Temple University

__________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civ. No. 10-cv-02042)

District Judge: C. Darnell Jones, II

__________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action 

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

November 3, 2016

Before: CHAGARES, VANASKIE and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed November 23, 2016)

Case: 16-2405 Document: 003112471187 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/23/2016
2

____________

OPINION

____________

PER CURIAM

Appellant Michael Osei appeals from three post-judgment orders of the District 

Court. For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss the appeal in part for lack of 

jurisdiction and summarily affirm in part to the extent of our jurisdiction.

Osei, in pursuit of a Healthcare Management graduate degree from Temple 

University, enrolled in Professor Grant Krow’s organic chemistry course, and received a 

grade of “C” for the semester. Osei was dissatisfied with this grade and corresponded 

inappropriately with Professor Krow via e-mail concerning his grievance. Professor 

Krow reported those emails to campus police and eventually Osei was charged with and 

adjudicated guilty of a student code of conduct violation. On February 8, 2010, Osei was 

notified that Temple University was imposing on him a suspension lasting through 

August 15, 2010, and probation lasting through graduation. 

After exhausting his administrative appeals, Osei filed suit in the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging, among other claims, a 

denial of procedural due process. The District Court allowed him to amend his 

complaint, and then dismissed his federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over his remaining state claims. We affirmed on appeal on March 11, 2013, 

holding that Osei was afforded the procedural due process required by the Fourteenth 

 

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.

Case: 16-2405 Document: 003112471187 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/23/2016
3

Amendment prior to his disciplinary suspension, see Osei v. Temple University, 518 F. 

App’x 86 (3d Cir. 2013). We subsequently denied his petition for rehearing and the 

mandate issued on April 17, 2013. 

On September 22, 2015, more than two years after our mandate issued, Osei filed 

a motion to seal the court record relating to this case in both the Court of Appeals and the 

District Court. After receiving and considering responses from the parties, we denied the 

motion to seal, and, in an order entered on November 12, 2015, the District Court also 

denied the post-judgment motion to seal, see Docket Entry No. 48. On March 29, 2016, 

Osei filed, in the District Court only, a “Motion for Reconsideration and/or Appeal Nunc

Pro Tunc of the District Court’s Non Sequitur & Unconstitutional Order” denying his 

motion to seal, in which he argued that the District Judge had a prior association with 

Temple University School of Law and was biased. In an order entered on April 11, 2016, 

the Court denied this motion, concluding that there was no basis for recusal, see Docket 

Entry No. 58. In an order entered on May 5, 2016, the District Court denied a host of 

other post-judgment motions filed by Osei, challenging the order refusing to seal the 

court record, see Docket Entry No. 67. In this order the District Court admonished Osei 

“to stop inundating the Clerk’s Office with repetitious filings. The effect of [your] 

repeatedly frivolous and vexatious filings is a significant drain on the court’s resources 

and it simply must stop.”

On May 11, 2016, Osei filed a notice of appeal, seeking review of these three 

orders, resulting in the instant appeal. After the Clerk issued a Briefing and Scheduling 

Order, Osei filed a motion for summary reversal of the three orders, and a motion to bar 

Case: 16-2405 Document: 003112471187 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/23/2016
4

the appellees from filing a response to the motion for summary reversal. Temple 

University and the individual appellees responded in opposition to these motions, and 

requested summary affirmance of the District Court’s three orders. Osei replied in 

opposition to summary affirmance.

We will dismiss the appeal in part for lack of appellate jurisdiction and summarily 

affirm to the extent of our jurisdiction. The taking of an appeal within the prescribed 

time is mandatory and jurisdictional. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209 (2007). In an 

order entered on November 12, 2015, see Docket Entry No. 48, the District Court denied 

Osei’s post-judgment motion to seal the court record. We lack jurisdiction to review this 

order and will dismiss the appeal to the extent that Osei seeks review of it. Osei had 30 

days to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 

2107(a). The notice of appeal filed on May 11, 2016 was not timely with respect to this 

order. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A)(iv) tolls the running of the appeal 

period only when a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) is filed 

within 28 days after entry of the judgment. Lizardo v. United States, 619 F.3d 273, 278-

79 (3d Cir. 2010). Osei’s March 29, 2016 “Motion for Reconsideration and/or Appeal 

Nunc Pro Tunc of the District Court’s Non Sequitur & Unconstitutional Order” was not 

filed within 28 days of the District Court’s order denying his motion to seal the court 

record. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2) (“When an act may or must be done within 

a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend the time,” except that a “court 

Case: 16-2405 Document: 003112471187 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/23/2016
5

must not extend the time to act under Rules 50(b) and (d), 52(b), 59(b), (d), and (e), and 

60(b).”). Accordingly, it did not toll the time for taking an appeal.

1

In his March 29, 2016 motion for reconsideration, Osei asked the District Court to 

recuse pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) because of a conflict of interest, and he argued that 

he had new evidence that the District Court had “a prior pecuniary affiliation” with 

Temple University that prevented it from fairly deciding his motion to seal the court 

record. Rule 60(b)(2) provides that “the court may relieve a party ... from a final 

judgment” where the movant has “newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable 

diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 

59(b),” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2). In addition, Rule 60(b)(6) provides for relief from 

judgment for any reason that justifies relief, upon a showing of extraordinary 

circumstances, see Martinez-McBean v. Gov’t of Virgin Islands, 562 F.2d 908, 911 (3d 

Cir. 1977). We will treat Osei’s March 29, 2016 motion as a Rule 60(b) motion insofar 

as it presented grounds cognizable under Rule 60. See Ahmed v. Dragovich, 297 F.3d 

201, 209 (3d Cir. 2002). Osei’s notice of appeal was timely filed within 30 days of the 

order denying this motion. We thus have jurisdiction to review it. 28 U.S.C. 1291; Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The notice of appeal also was timely filed with respect to the 

order entered on May 5, 2016, wherein the District Court denied a host of other postjudgment, Rule 60(b)-type motions filed by Osei challenging the Court’s impartiality, see

Docket Entry No. 67. We have jurisdiction to review that order as well. See also Isidor 

 

1

In any event, we previously denied the identical motion to seal the court record when 

Osei filed it in this Court.

Case: 16-2405 Document: 003112471187 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/23/2016
6

Paiewonsky, Inc. v. Sharp Properties, Inc., 998 F.2d 145, 149-50 (3d Cir. 1993) (postjudgment orders are final and immediately appealable); Plymouth Mutual Life Insurance 

Co. v. Illinois Mid-Continent Life Insurance Co., 378 F.2d 389, 391 (3d Cir. 1967) 

(same). 

We will summarily affirm the orders of the District Court entered on April 11, 

2016, see Docket Entry No. 58, and May 5, 2016, see Docket Entry No. 67, because no 

substantial question is presented by the appeal, Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. 

We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for an abuse of discretion. See Reform 

Party of Allegheny County v. Allegheny County Dep’t of Elections, 174 F.3d 305, 311 

(3d Cir. 1999) (en banc). The District Court abuses its discretion when it bases its 

decision “upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an erroneous conclusion of law, or an 

improper application of law to fact.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

In denying the motions, the District Court concluded that Osei’s allegations of bias were 

unfounded. After careful review of the record, we hold that the District Court, in 

reaching this conclusion, did not abuse its discretion.

For the foregoing reasons, we will dismiss the appeal in part for lack of appellate 

jurisdiction to the extent that Osei seeks review of the order entered on November 12, 

2015, and summarily affirm the orders of the District Court denying Osei’s March 29, 

2016 motion for reconsideration and his numerous other repetitive and frivolous postjudgment motions. Osei’s motion for summary reversal is denied as moot, and his 

motion to bar a response by the appellees is denied.

Case: 16-2405 Document: 003112471187 Page: 6 Date Filed: 11/23/2016