Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-10-01877/USCOURTS-ca3-10-01877-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andrew Fullman
Appellant
Postmaster General of the United States
Appellee
United States Postal Service
Appellee

Document Text:

BLD-228 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1877

___________

ANDREW FULLMAN,

Appellant

v.

POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES;

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, AGENCY

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Action No. 05-cv-1352)

District Judge: Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to 

 Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6(a)

June 24, 2010

Before: RENDELL, CHAGARES and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 2, 2010)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM

Andrew Fullman, proceeding pro se, appeals two orders of the District Court

denying several post-judgment motions related to his employment discrimination case. 

Case: 10-1877 Document: 003110236364 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2010
 The motion raises issues identical to the those Fullman raised in a separate complaint 1

which the District Court dismissed pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and is before this Court

on appeal. See Fullman v. Potter, Civ. No. 10-1256.

2

For the reasons set forth below, we will summarily affirm. See I.O.P. 10.6.

I.

The Postal Service terminated Fullman for failing to disclose, as required by his

employment application, that he was previously employed by the Postal Service, and had

been terminated in 1989 for filing a false worker’s compensation claim. In 2005, Fullman

filed a filed a complaint in the District Court alleging that the appellee, inter alia,

discriminated against him based on his race, color, and sex, and engaged in retaliatory

discharge in violation of Title VII. The District Court granted summary judgment in

favor of the appellee, and we affirmed.

In February 2010, Fullman filed a motion for reconsideration essentially requesting

re-adjudication of his employment related claims by offering “newly discovered

evidence” of fraud upon the court. The District Court treated it as a motion pursuant to 1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), or alternatively, a motion pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and denied it as untimely. In March 2010, Fullman filed an

“amended” post-judgment motion for reconsideration as well as a motion for

disqualification of the District Court Judge. The District Court again denied the

reconsideration motion as untimely and denied the motion for disqualification on the

merits. This appeal followed.

Case: 10-1877 Document: 003110236364 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2010
3

II.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and review the

District Court’s orders denying Fullman’s motions for reconsideration, as well as his

motion for disqualification, for abuse of discretion. See Koshatka v. Phila. Newspapers,

Inc., 762 F.2d 329, 333 (3d Cir. 1985); In re Kensington Int’l Ltd., 368 F.3d 289, 300-01

(3d Cir. 2004).

The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fullman’s post-judgment

motions for reconsideration. We agree that the motions were untimely under Rule 59(e)

because they were filed more than twenty-eight days after the entry of the order granting

summary judgment, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), and untimely under Rule 60(b) because

they were filed “more than a year after entry of judgment or order or the date of the

proceeding.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). We further conclude that the District Court

did not abuse its discretion in denying Fullman’s motion for disqualification as the motion

states no conceivable basis for disqualification. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S.

540, 555 (1994). 

As Fullman’s appeal presents no substantial question, we will summarily affirm. 

See Third Cir. LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. 

Case: 10-1877 Document: 003110236364 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/02/2010