Court Opinion

ID: 9958806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 21:00:40.900063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:36.474458
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1794       Doc: 5         Filed: 04/08/2024   Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1794

        MARILYNN M. MCRAE,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        DONNIE HARRISON, Sheriff,

                             Defendant - Appellee,

                      and

        SAMUEL B. HIGDON; GENE D. BUTLER,

                             Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:17-cv-00023-FL)

        Submitted: January 9, 2024                                          Decided: April 8, 2024

        Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Marilynn M. McRae, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1794      Doc: 5         Filed: 04/08/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Marilynn M. McRae appeals the district court’s order denying her motions for relief

        from the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), (b), 79. * Limiting our review to the

        issues raised in the informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170,

        177 (4th Cir. 2014), we have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion in the

        district court’s denial of those motions, see Aikens, 652 F.3d at 501 (stating standard of

        review); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (establishing one-year limit on filing of Rule 60(b)(1)-(3)

        motions). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. McRae v. Harrison, No. 5:17-

        cv-00023-FL (E.D.N.C. May 31, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

        and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

        argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                         AFFIRMED

               *
                To the extent McRae seeks to challenge the district court’s prior grant of summary
        judgment to Appellee Donnie Harrison on McRae’s claims, or the court’s denial of her
        May 2022 Rule 60(b) motion, those orders are not properly before us in this appeal. See
        United States v. Cannady, 63 F.4th 259, 266 (4th Cir. 2023) (discussing mandate rule);
        Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) (“[A]n appeal from denial of Rule
        60(b) relief does not bring up the underlying judgment for review.” (internal quotation
        marks omitted)); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (“[T]he timely filing of a
        notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”).

                                                      2