UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES DALE WOLLNICK,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

KAREN D. BENSON; ROBERT 

DOUGLAS WOLLNICK; ELIZABETH 

MONTGOMERY,

 Defendants - Appellees.

 

No. 14-1309

(D. Colorado)

(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-00731-LTB)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ, McKAY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. 

 

 

* After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. 

P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

December 31, 2014

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 14-1309 Document: 01019363485 Date Filed: 12/31/2014 Page: 1 
2 

 Plaintiff Charles Wollnick filed a pro se complaint in the United States District 

Court for the District of Colorado seeking damages and reversal of a Colorado state-court 

judgment regarding his late father’s estate. On April 18, 2014, the district court 

dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which 

prohibits the lower federal courts from engaging in appellate review of state-court 

judgments. See D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 

263 U.S. 413 (1923). The court ruled in the alternative that if the state-court judgment 

was not final when Plaintiff filed the federal action, it would abstain from exercising 

jurisdiction under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), which generally bars federalcourt interference with ongoing state-court proceedings. Plaintiff then filed three 

unsuccessful postjudgment motions before filing a notice of appeal on August 6. We 

hold that our jurisdiction on appeal is limited to review of the denial of the third 

postjudgment motion, and we affirm that denial. 

Ordinarily, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after a final order or 

judgment is entered. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). But if a party files a motion for 

reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 or 60 within 28 days of the 

entry of the order or judgment, the time for filing a notice of appeal does not commence 

until the entry of the order disposing of the motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 59(e). Application of these rules to the district court’s judgment and orders in 

this case is straightforward. 

Appellate Case: 14-1309 Document: 01019363485 Date Filed: 12/31/2014 Page: 2 
3 

We begin with the judgment entered on April 18. Plaintiff did not file a tolling 

motion within 28 days of the judgment. The time to appeal the judgment therefore 

expired 30 days after April 18. Plaintiff did not file his notice of appeal until August 6. 

Thus, he cannot challenge the original judgment. 

Next, we consider the district court’s denial of Plaintiff’s May 19 motion for 

reconsideration. The district court denied the motion on May 22. Plaintiff filed a motion 

to reconsider that denial 26 days later, on June 17, postponing the time to appeal from the 

denial. But the postponement ended on June 19, when the district court denied the 

June 17 motion. Therefore, Plaintiff’s time to appeal the May 22 denial of his first 

postjudgment motion expired 30 days after June 19, well before the filing of the notice of 

appeal in August. 

Plaintiff’s challenge to the June 19 order denying his second postjudgment motion 

fares no better. He did not file a motion to reconsider within 28 days, so the time to 

appeal from that order was not postponed. Hence, the time to appeal from the denial 

expired 30 days after June 19, again more than two weeks before he filed his notice of 

appeal. 

We can, however, review the district court’s denial of Plaintiff’s third 

postjudgment motion. The motion, filed on July 18, alleged mailing delays and clerical 

errors by the court and explained some of his own errors. Plaintiff timely filed his notice 

of appeal 15 days after the district court denied this motion in a minute order on July 22. 

Appellate Case: 14-1309 Document: 01019363485 Date Filed: 12/31/2014 Page: 3 
4 

Nevertheless Plaintiff is not entitled to relief. We perceive no error in the July 22 order 

that would justify a remedy on appeal. 

We AFFIRM the judgment and orders of the district court. And because Plaintiff 

has not made a “reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the 

issues raised on appeal,” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991), 

we DENY his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

 Harris L Hartz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 14-1309 Document: 01019363485 Date Filed: 12/31/2014 Page: 4