Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01400/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01400-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin M. Clarke
Appellant
Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1053

PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KEVIN M. CLARKE,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-1400

PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KEVIN M. CLARKE,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 08-1401

PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

Appeal: 08-1400 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/30/2008 Pg: 1 of 5
- 2 -

v.

KEVIN M. CLARKE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:06-cv-00792-JCC-BRP)

Submitted: June 26, 2008 Decided: June 30, 2008

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit

Judge.

No. 08-1053 dismissed; Nos. 08-1400 and 08-1401 affirmed by

unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin M. Clarke, Appellant Pro Se. Brenna Kathleen Newman, Edward

Hutton Starr, TROUTMAN & SANDERS, LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-1400 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/30/2008 Pg: 2 of 5
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

These consolidated appeals arise out of the same district

court civil action, in which Provident Life and Accident Insurance

Company (“Provident”) alleged Kevin Clarke perpetrated insurance

fraud. The parties signed a settlement agreement, the validity of

which Clarke thereafter disputed in district court. 

First, in Case No. 08-1053, Kevin Clarke seeks to appeal

the district court’s order granting Provident’s motion to enforce

the settlement agreement and denying Clarke’s motion to nullify the

settlement agreement. Parties are accorded thirty days after the

entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an

appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court

extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens

the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal

period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir., Dep’t

of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

November 2, 2007, and Clarke’s notice of appeal and motion for an

extension of time to appeal were filed on December 19, 2007.

Clarke’s notice of appeal was untimely filed, and the district

court’s finding that Clarke failed to demonstrate excusable neglect

necessary to extend the appeal period was not an abuse of

discretion. See Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 76

Appeal: 08-1400 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/30/2008 Pg: 3 of 5
*

To the extent that Clarke seeks to appeal the denial of his

motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, which

was submitted in the same document as his motion to alter and

amend, we likewise dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated above

in our dismissal of Case No. 08-1053.

- 4 -

F.3d 530, 533 (4th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, we dismiss Clarke’s

appeal in No. 08-1053.

Next, in Case No. 08-1400, Clarke seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying his motion to alter or amend

judgment. The motion was not timely under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e),

and relief was not warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) because

the motion simply sought reconsideration of the issues already

decided by the district court. See CNF Constructors, Inc. v.

Donohoe Constr. Co., 57 F.3d 395, 401. (4th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order in No. 08-1400.*

Finally, in Case No. 08-1401, Clarke appeals the district

court’s order denying his motion for appointment of counsel.

Finding no abuse of discretion, see Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d

962, 964-65 (4th Cir. 1987), we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. See Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co. v.

Clarke, No. 1:06-cv-00792-JCC) (E.D. Va. Mar. 19, 2008).

Appeal: 08-1400 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/30/2008 Pg: 4 of 5
- 5 -

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.

No. 08-1053 DISMISSED

No. 08-1400 AFFIRMED

No. 08-1401 AFFIRMED

Appeal: 08-1400 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/30/2008 Pg: 5 of 5