Court Opinion

ID: 9375107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:01:14.93159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:55.985589
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1571      Doc: 10         Filed: 02/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-1571

        FORD FAMILY,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:21-cv-00357-M)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                  Decided: February 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Ford Family, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1571       Doc: 10         Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               The Ford Family (“Ford”) seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing

        Ford’s complaint for failure to state a claim, and appeals the order denying Ford’s

        postjudgment motions. Because the notice of appeal was filed more than 60 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)(B).        With respect to the court’s order denying Ford’s

        postjudgment motions, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. We

        therefore affirm the district court’s postjudgment order. 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

                                                      2