Court Opinion

ID: 9412247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 21:02:08.693076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:34.198189
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1528       Doc: 23        Filed: 07/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-1528

        KATHY R. ALLEN; JAY K. ALLEN,

                             Plaintiffs - Appellants,

                      v.

        L3HARRIS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

                             Defendant - Appellee,

                      and

        METLIFE; MERCER HEALTH BENEFITS                        ADMINISTRATION,         LLC;
        LINCOLN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE CO.,

                             Defendants.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:21-cv-00174-D)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                          Decided: July 27, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kathy R. Allen, Jay K. Allen, Appellants Pro Se. Michael Douglas McKnight, Savannah
        Trimmer, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Raleigh, North
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1528      Doc: 23         Filed: 07/27/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1528      Doc: 23         Filed: 07/27/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Kathy R. Allen and Jay K. Allen (collectively, Appellants) appeal the district court’s

        orders dismissing their civil complaint and denying their motion for reconsideration.

        Because the notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after the court entered the order

        dismissing the complaint, that order is not properly before this court. See Fed. R. App. P.

        4(a)(1)(A). With respect to the court’s order denying Appellants’ postjudgment motion,

        we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the

        district court’s postjudgment order. We also deny all pending motions. 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

                                                     3