Case Name: Yvette DANIEL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Hoechst Marion ROUSSEL, doing business as Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-10
Citations: 114 F. App'x 640
Docket Number: No. 04-20106
Parties: Yvette DANIEL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Hoechst Marion ROUSSEL, doing business as Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 640–640

Head Matter:
Yvette DANIEL, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Hoechst Marion ROUSSEL, doing business as Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-20106.
(Summary Calendar).
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 10, 2004.
Yvette Daniel, Houston, TX, pro se.
Suzanne Lehman Johnson, Yvette Vanessa Gatling, Vinson & Elkins, Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Yvette Daniel ("Daniel") appeals the district court's order denying her motion for relief from judgment. Daniel, however, is actually attempting to appeal once again the district court's decision to grant summary judgment. We previously dismissed her appeal for lack of prosecution and our circuit has a "firm rule of not allowing a 60(b) motion to substitute for an appeal." In re Air Crash at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport, 852 F.2d 842, 844 (5th Cir.1988). See also Lancaster v. Presley, 35 F.3d 229, 231 (5th Cir.1994). Moreover, Daniel has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in denying her relief from judgment. See Tollett v. City of Kemah, 285 F.3d 357, 369 (5th Cir.2002). Finally, we find that her motion was untimely because it was filed after the one year deadline set out in Fed.R.CivP. 60(b). Accordingly, we DISMISS Daniel's appeal. Daniel's motion for judge appointed mediation is DENIED AS MOOT.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.