Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02347/USCOURTS-ca4-15-02347-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Katherine Archuleta

Libby A. Demery
Appellant
John M. McHugh
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2347

LIBBY A. DEMERY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOHN M. MCHUGH, Secretary of the Army,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

KATHERINE ARCHULETA,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:13-

cv-02389-PWG)

Submitted: March 17, 2016 Decided: March 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Libby A. Demery, Appellant Pro Se. Alex Gordon, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, Allen F. Loucks, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee. 

Appeal: 15-2347 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/21/2016 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2347 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/21/2016 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Libby Demery appeals the district court’s letter order

denying her motions for Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3) relief and for 

recusal of the presiding district judge.* On appeal, we confine 

our review to the issues raised in Demery’s informal briefs. 

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). We have reviewed the record in light of 

Demery’s arguments and find no reversible error in the district 

court’s conclusion that Demery did not allege fraud on the court 

warranting postjudgment relief under Rule 60(d)(3). 

Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by 

the district court. Demery v. McHugh, No. 8:13-cv-02389-PWG 

(D. Md. filed Oct. 23, 2015 & entered Oct. 26, 2015). We deny 

Demery’s motion requesting oral argument because the facts and

 * Demery’s informal briefs also address the court’s 

underlying judgment dismissing her claims of unlawful 

discrimination, retaliation, and veterans’ preference violations 

in hiring, and its denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) relief. 

Because Demery did not timely appeal those orders, they are not 

properly before us. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B), 4(a)(1)(B), 

(4)(A)(iv); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 175-77 (4th Cir. 

2014). Further, insofar as Demery seeks appellate review of a 

sanctions request filed with the Department of Justice, such 

proceedings are not within this court’s jurisdiction.

Appeal: 15-2347 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/21/2016 Pg: 3 of 4
4

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-2347 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/21/2016 Pg: 4 of 4