Court Opinion

ID: 9398432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 14:01:37.151171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:33.573423
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                               FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                         ____________
No. 22-7069                                                   September Term, 2022
                                                                       1:16-cv-00947-EGS
                                                         Filed On: May 31, 2023
Randy Brown,

              Appellant

       v.

District of Columbia,

              Appellee

            ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

       BEFORE:          Millett, Pillard, and Rao, Circuit Judges

                                        JUDGMENT

        This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

        ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s March 30, 2022 order be
affirmed. Appellant has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in
denying his motion to reopen the time to appeal when the criteria for doing so under
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) were not met, and the district court
therefore lacked authority to grant his motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c); Ladeairous v.
Garland, 45 F.4th 188, 191 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (statutorily prescribed components of Rule
4(a)(6) are jurisdictional); In re: Sealed Case (Bowles), 624 F.3d 482, 483-84 (D.C. Cir.
2010) (180-day deadline for reopening the time to file an appeal is not subject to
equitable exceptions). Appellant has not raised any argument regarding the district
court’s denial of relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and thus has
forfeited any such challenge. See United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp.,
380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2004). We also do not reach any issue related to the
district court’s underlying summary judgment ruling because the appeal is not timely as
to that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).

        Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 22-7069                                                September Term, 2022

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

                                       Per Curiam

                                          Page 2