Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-01999/USCOURTS-ca4-09-01999-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dayco Products, LLC
Appellee
Gertrude Coretta Fennell Hamilton
Appellant
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Mark IV Industries
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1999

GERTRUDE CORETTA FENNELL HAMILTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DAYCO PRODUCTS, LLC; MARK IV INDUSTRIES,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior

District Judge. (2:07-cv-02782-PMD)

Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 23, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Gertrude Coretta Fennell Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se. Susanna 

Hancock Murray, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, 

Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Appeal: 09-1999 Doc: 17 Filed: 02/23/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-1999 Doc: 17 Filed: 02/23/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

PER CURIAM:

Gertrude Coretta Fennell Hamilton appeals from the 

district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in her 

employment discrimination action, and its denial of her motion 

for reconsideration. As a preliminary matter, Hamilton’s appeal 

is timely only as to the denial of her motion for 

reconsideration, which motion properly is construed pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); see 

generally Dove v. CODESCO, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir. 1978). 

As to the district court’s denial of that motion, we find no 

abuse of discretion. See MLC Automotive, LLC v. Town of S. 

Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of 

Hamilton’s motion for reconsideration, and dismiss for lack of 

jurisdiction Hamilton’s appeal from the underlying judgment. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART

Appeal: 09-1999 Doc: 17 Filed: 02/23/2010 Pg: 3 of 3