NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 17

- 2475

_____________
IN RE: KENNETH TAGGART , Appellant

_____________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 2

- 15

- mc - 00255 ) District Judge: Honorable Gerald J. Pappert

______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

July 13, 2018

______________ Before: MCKEE , VANASKIE , and RESTREPO , Circuit Judges

( Filed : September 20, 2018)

______________ OPINION *

______________ VANASKIE, Circuit Judge. Kenneth Taggart appeals the District Court’s denial of a reconsideration motion

. Taggart contends the District Court improperly considered his motion under Fede ral

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2

Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e ) , when, in fact, he moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Because we conclude the District Court properly construed Tagga rt’s motion and discern no error in the District Court’s analysis, we will affirm

. I. Taggart is a real estate appraiser . Before 2008, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) listed Taggart in its roster of appraisers who were authorized to appraise properties for persons seeking HUD

- insured mortgages

. In 2008, as part of an unrelated transaction, Taggart obtained his own HUD

- insured mortgage. After Taggart defaulted on his mortgage, HUD removed him from its appraiser ros ter. Taggart sued HUD, claiming the removal was improper

. See Taggart v. GMAC Mort

g ., LLC , No. 12

- cv - 415 (E.D. Pa.) ( “ Taggart I ” ). A fter extensive motion practice, the District C ourt granted summary judgment in favor of HUD

. See Taggart v. GMAC Mortg., LLC , No. 12

- cv - 415, 2013 WL 4079655 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2013 ). We affirmed

. See Taggart v. GMAC Mortg., LLC , 600 F. App’x 859 (3d Cir. 2015). After Taggart I was resolved, the United States served Taggart with two civil investigative demands (“CIDs”) as part of a False Claims Act investigation concerning the mortgage. Taggart filed a second law suit, seeking to quash the CIDs

. See In re : Taggart , No. 15

- mc - 255 (E.D. Pa.) ( “ Taggart II ” ). On April 11, 2016 t he District Court denied Taggart’s motion to quash

. ( April 11, 2016 Order, App. at 80.) After allegedl y insufficient production by Taggart, the g overnment served a third CID. Taggart filed a motion to quash this CID, which was denied. See In re : Taggart , No. 15

- mc - 255, 20163

WL 3538604 (E.D. Pa. J une 29, 2016). Taggart appealed

. We dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. (September 20, 2016 Order, App. at 237.) While Taggart II was pending, Taggart initiated a third action against HUD and the United States, challenging the CIDs and alleging constitutional claims arising out of the False Claims Act investigation

. See Taggart v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , No. 16

- cv 4040 (E.D. Pa.) ( “ Taggart III ” )

. The parties engaged in more motion practice and
p articipated in oral argument. Ultimately, t he District Court dismissed Taggart III in its entirety. See Taggart v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , No. 16

- cv - 4040, 2017 WL 319062 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 20, 2017); Taggart v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , No. 16

- cv - 4040, 2017 WL 1862324 (E.D. Pa. May 9, 2017). Taggart di d not appeal. Then, on April 9, 2017, Taggart moved the Taggart II Court for reconsideration of its April 11, 2016 O rder , citing statements made by government counsel during oral argument held in Taggart III as newly discovered evidence

. The District Court denied the reconsideration moti on as untimely under Rule 59(e)

. Taggart appeals

. II. The District Court had juris diction pursuant to 31 U.S.C § 3733(j)(1)

– (2)

. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court’s denial of a reconsideration motion for abuse of discretion. See Lazaridis v. Wehmer , 591 F.3d 666, 669 ( 3d Cir. 2010)

. Th e District Court treated Taggart’s motion as a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e). On appeal, Taggart contends that doing so was improper because his motion

was actually a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b). We see no error in the4

District Court’s treatment of the reconsideration motion. Taggart’s motion made no mention of Rule 60(b) no r cited to cases involving that rule

. Additionally, we see no error in the District Court’s analysis. Rule 59(e) requires that “ [a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P

. 59(e). Taggart’s motion, filed 363 days after judgment was entered in Taggart II , was unequivocally untimely. Accordingly , we will affirm the order of the District Court dated May 9, 2017

.