Case Name: Quetzelina LUBE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NCO FINANCIAL SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-12
Citations: 566 F. App'x 713
Docket Number: No. 14-1014
Parties: Quetzelina LUBE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NCO FINANCIAL SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before GORSUCH, MURPHY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 566
Pages: 713–713

Head Matter:
Quetzelina LUBE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NCO FINANCIAL SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-1014.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
May 12, 2014.
Quetzelina Lube, Denver, CO, pro se.
Kevin Gallo Barreca, Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, Metairie, LA, Scott Mi-kulecky, Sherman & Howard, Colorado Springs, CO, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before GORSUCH, MURPHY, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
NEIL M. GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.
Quetzelina Lube's appeal comes to us almost a decade after her suit was dismissed. Since that dismissal Ms. Lube has filed repeated motions for reconsideration. This appeal concerns the latest effort. We discern no reversible error in the district court's decision to deny Ms. Lube's current motion. Even viewing it generously, the two paragraph pleading does not specify grounds for reconsideration sufficient to meet the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). And to the extent Ms. Lube seeks to challenge the original dismissal of her suit, the time for that appeal has passed.
Affirmed.
After examining the brief and 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.