Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01338/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01338-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1338

___________

James M. Keitges, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Domina Law Group, PC LLO; David A. *

Domina, Individually and In His * [UNPUBLISHED]

Official Capacity as an Officer of the *

Court; James F. Cann, Individually and *

In His Official Capacity as an Officer *

of the Court, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 21, 2010

Filed: July 26, 2010

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

James Keitges appeals from the order of the District Court1

 granting summary

judgment to the Defendants and from that court's denial of two rounds of

postjudgment motions. We affirm.

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska. 

Appellate Case: 10-1338 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/26/2010 Entry ID: 3686797
The District Court entered final judgment in this case on June 1, 2009, but

Keitges did not file his notice of appeal until February 11, 2010. Although Keitges’s

postjudgment motions filed on June 11, 2009, tolled the time to appeal the June 1

judgment, he failed to file his notice of appeal within thirty days of the District

Court’s September 4, 2009, order denying his tolling postjudgment motions. See Fed.

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (4)(A) (stating in relevant part that a notice of appeal must be

filed within thirty days after the entry of judgment; the time to appeal runs from the

final disposition of a timely-filed motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or a Rule 60(b) motion that is filed within ten days after entry of

judgment).2

 His second round of postjudgment motions did not have a tolling effect

because they were not filed until September 2009. See Noah v. Bond Cold Storage,

408 F.3d 1043, 1044 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (holding that because a second

postjudgment motion was not filed within ten days of the original judgment, it did not

toll the time to appeal that judgment). 

We lack jurisdiction to review anything but the January 14, 2010, order denying

the second round of postjudgment motions. See Dill v. Gen. Am. Life Ins. Co., 525

F.3d 612, 619–20 (8th Cir. 2008) (noting that a timely notice of appeal is mandatory

and jurisdictional). As to that order, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse

its discretion in denying relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Keitges raised matters—that one of the Defendants had acted pro se and

through counsel, that the Defendants were granted an extension of time to answer, and

that Keitges’s response to the extension motion was deleted—which could have been

raised in a timely-filed appeal from the final judgment. See Sanders v. Clemco Indus.,

862 F.2d 161, 169 (8th Cir. 1988) ("[A] Rule 60(b) motion must be made within thirty

days of the judgment if the alleged error could have been corrected by appeal of that

2

As of December 1, 2009, Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(vi) of the Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure and Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to

extend the time to file tolling motions under Rules 59(e) and 60 from ten days to

twenty-eight days, but these changes have no effect on this appeal. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 10-1338 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/26/2010 Entry ID: 3686797
judgment."). In any event, none of these matters constituted exceptional

circumstances. See Harley v. Zoesch, 413 F.3d 866, 871 (8th Cir. 2005) (noting that

Rule 60(b) relief is available "only where exceptional circumstances have denied the

moving party a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claim and have prevented the

moving party from receiving adequate redress"). We also conclude that the court did

not abuse its discretion in denying Keitges’s motion to recuse. See Neal v. Wilson,

112 F.3d 351, 357 & n.6 (8th Cir. 1997) (reviewing the denial of a recusal motion for

abuse of discretion and disapproving of the decision to wait until after the district

court issued an unfavorable ruling to move for recusal).3

Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Keitges’s motion to strike the Appellees’

brief.

______________________________

3

We do not review that portion of the January 14, 2010, order denying as

untimely Keitges’s motion filed under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. See Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir.) (holding that the

appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of an untimely Rule 59(e)

motion), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 975 (2001).

-3-

Appellate Case: 10-1338 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/26/2010 Entry ID: 3686797