Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03273/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03273-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Unit.ed &';.ates Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

BOB J. SETTLE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

TIM HENDRIX, et al. 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FEB 51992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-3273 

(D . Kan. No. 90-2373-V) 

ORDER .AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, Circuit Judge, BARRETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and 

EBEL, Circuit Judge.t 

Appellant Settle appeals the district court's dismissal of 

his claim construed by that court to be brought under 42 u.s.c. S 

1983. Because Settle failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we 

have no jurisdiction. We therefore must dismiss this appeal. 

The district court entered final judgment dismissing Settle's 

case on June 6, 1991. On June 11, Settle filed a "Motion for 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

t After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a): 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9 . Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 91-3273 Document: 010110221690 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 1 
Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Specify [sic] Grounds for 

Granting Defendants Motion to Dismiss, and Amendment of Judgment." 

This motion could be treated as arising under either Rule 52(b) or 

Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure . In either 

case, under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4), the time to appeal began to 

run upon the district court's denial of Settle's motion, which 

occurred on July 11, 1991. On July 18, Settle filed a "Motion to 

Reconsider the Court's Order of July 11, 1991, Amendment of 

Judgment and Sanctions." However this motion was not filed within 

ten days of the entry of judgment as required by Fed R. Civ . P. 

52(b) & 59(e). Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) requires a "timely motion . " 

Therefore, the time to appeal was not tolled or reset. Needham v . 

White Laboratories, Inc., 639 F.2d 394, 397 (7th Cir. 1981); Yates 

v. Behrend, 280 F.2d 64 , 65-66 (D.C. Cir. 1960); Charles Wright, 

Arthur Miller, Edward Cooper & Eugene Gressman, Federal Practice 

and Procedure S 3950, at 364 (1977) ("Nor does a motion to 

reconsider the district court's denial of one or more of the four 

specified motions operate to suspend further running of the appeal 

periods; the losing party is entitled to but one suspension."). 

Settle filed his notice of appeal on August 16, which was not 

within thirty days of July 11, as required by Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(l). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as untimely. 

The appellees' motion for sanctions on appeal is denied. 

It is so ORDERED. The mandate shall i ssue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 91-3273 Document: 010110221690 Date Filed: 02/05/1992 Page: 2