UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1500

TRACY E. WADE, Administratrix of the Estate of Richard 

Brian Wade,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,

Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-00608)

Submitted: March 30, 2015 Decided: April 10, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew C. Lindsay, Richard D. Lindsay, TABOR LINDSAY & 

ASSOCIATES, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth 

Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Fred B. Westfall, Jr., 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Tracy E. Wade appeals the district court’s orders 

granting judgment to the Defendant after a bench trial and 

denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion to alter or amend the

judgment. The Appellee originally contended that we lacked 

jurisdiction over the appeal because it was not timely filed. 

We previously ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs 

addressing whether judgment was entered on a separate document 

in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). We now affirm.

To comply with the Rule 58 separate document requirements, 

“the essentials of a judgment or order [must be] set forth in a 

written document separate from the court’s opinion or

memorandum.” Hughes v. Halifax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 823 F.2d 832, 

835 (4th Cir. 1987). Because the district court did not enter 

its judgment on a separate document, we have jurisdiction. See

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii); United States v. Little, 392 

F.3d 671, 680 & n.15 (4th Cir. 2004); Caperton v. Beatrice 

Pocahontas Coal Co., 585 F.2d 683, 690-91 (4th Cir. 1978).

Turning to the merits, we review “judgments stemming from a 

bench trial under a mixed standard: factual findings are 

reviewed for clear error, whereas conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo.” Makdessi v. Fields, __ F.3d __, 2015 WL 

1062747, *4 (4th Cir. Mar. 12, 2015) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). “In cases in which a district court’s
3

factual findings turn on assessments of witness credibility or 

the weighing of conflicting evidence during a bench trial, such 

findings are entitled to even greater deference.” Helton v. 

AT&T, Inc., 709 F.3d 343, 350 (4th Cir. 2013). We review the 

denial of a Rule 59 motion for abuse of discretion. Jones v. 

Southpeak Interactive Corp. of Del., 777 F.3d 658, 674 (4th Cir. 

2015) (citation omitted); Wilkins v. Montgomery, 751 F.3d 214, 

220 (4th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). 

We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, and we 

conclude that the district court did not err or abuse its 

discretion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by 

the district court. See Wade v. United States, No. 3:12-cv00608 (S.D. W. Va. Apr. 28, 2014; Feb. 20, 2014). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED