Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 101 views

    Joseph Nobrega v. George Hinkle, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court's order denying Joseph Nobrega's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court found that the district court can consider a timely filed Rule 60(b) motion even after an appeal, and remanded for the district court to consider the motion. The appellate court expressed no opinion on the merits of the Rule 60(b) motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Joseph Nobrega v. George Hinkle, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    101 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court's order denying Joseph Nobrega's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court found that the district court can consider a timely filed Rule 60(b) motion even after an appeal, and remanded for the district court to consider the motion. The appellate court expressed no opinion on the merits of the Rule 60(b) motion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-06-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-6105

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court's order denying Joseph Nobrega's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court found that the district court can consider a timely filed Rule 60(b) motion even after an appeal, and remanded for the district court to consider the motion. The appellate court expressed no opinion on the merits of the Rule 60(b) motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    101 views3 pages

    Joseph Nobrega v. George Hinkle, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court's order denying Joseph Nobrega's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court found that the district court can consider a timely filed Rule 60(b) motion even after an appeal, and remanded for the district court to consider the motion. The appellate court expressed no opinion on the merits of the Rule 60(b) motion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-6105

    JOSEPH WALTER NOBREGA,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    GEORGE M. HINKLE, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (1:08-cv-00381-LO-JFA)

    Submitted:

    May 30, 2014

    Decided:

    June 24, 2014

    Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Joseph Nobrega, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF


    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Joseph
    denying

    for

    lack

    Nobrega
    of

    appeals

    the

    jurisdiction

    Procedure 60(b) motion.

    his

    district
    Federal

    courts
    Rule

    of

    order
    Civil

    We vacate the courts order and remand

    for further consideration of the motion.


    Pursuant to Rule 60(b), the district court may, upon
    motion, grant a party relief from a final judgment for certain
    reasons, including:

    (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or

    excusable neglect; . . . (3) fraud . . . , misrepresentation, or


    misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; . . .
    or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
    60(b).

    Fed. R. Civ. P.

    It is well settled that a district court may, without

    leave from the appellate court, entertain a Rule 60(b) motion


    that was filed within a reasonable amount of time after the
    district court entered its judgment, even if the appellate court
    has

    already

    decided

    the

    appeal

    of

    that

    judgment.

    Std.

    Oil

    Co. v. United States, 429 U.S. 17, 17-19 (1976) (per curiam).
    Thus, the district court reversibly erred when it refused to
    consider Nobregas Rule 60(b) motion on the ground that this
    court had already considered Nobregas appeal of the underlying
    judgment.

    See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 204

    (4th Cir. 2003) (District court decisions granting or denying


    Rule 60(b) relief are reviewed for abuse of discretion, although
    the exercise of discretion cannot be permitted to stand if we
    2

    find it rests upon an error of law.) (internal quotation marks


    omitted).
    Accordingly,
    pauperis,

    grant

    we

    grant

    certificate

    leave
    of

    to

    proceed

    appealability,

    in

    forma

    vacate

    the

    district courts order, and remand for further consideration of


    the Rule 60(b) motion.

    See Std. Oil, 429 U.S. at 19 (stating

    that the trial court is in a much better position to pass upon


    the

    issues

    presented

    in

    motion

    (internal quotation marks omitted)).

    pursuant

    to

    Rule

    We express no opinion as

    to the possible merits of Nobregas Rule 60(b) motion.


    Nobregas

    motion

    dispense

    with

    contentions

    are

    to

    oral

    compel

    the

    argument

    adequately

    production
    because

    presented

    60(b)

    in

    of

    the
    the

    We deny

    documents.

    facts

    We

    and

    legal

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    VACATED AND REMANDED

    You might also like