Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02637/USCOURTS-ca8-04-02637-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cedar Park Elementary
Appellee
Juanita Sims
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-2637

___________

Juanita Sims, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Cedar Park Elementary, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 7, 2005

Filed: October 20, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Juanita Sims filed a motion to reconsider more than ten days after dismissal of

her Title VII action as untimely, attaching her right-to-sue letter from the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The district court1

 denied her

motion, and Sims appeals. Liberally construing her motion to reconsider as a Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion, we conclude the district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying reconsideration. See Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161,

164-65, 169 (8th Cir. 1988) (construing reconsideration motion filed more than 10

Appellate Case: 04-2637 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2005 Entry ID: 1965389
-2-

days after entry of judgment under Rule 60(b); appeal from denial of Rule 60(b)

motion does not raise underlying judgment for review, and review is for abuse of

discretion); Brooks v. Ferguson-Florissant Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 903, 904-05 (8th Cir.

1997) (where Title VII action was dismissed as untimely in light of date alleged for

receipt of EEOC right-to-sue letter, it was not abuse of discretion to deny plaintiff’s

reconsideration motion, in which he attempted to correct date by referring to mailing

date of EEOC letter; “while [plaintiff] represented himself and may have had

difficulty with procedural rules, the motion to dismiss provided him notice that the

receipt date was critical”). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-2637 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2005 Entry ID: 1965389