UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1263
JOHNNY MILLIGAN; CAROLYN MILLIGAN,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT
CORPORATION; EQUITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES;
EQR WOODSIDE VISTAS, INCORPORATED,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TRUST; WOODSIDE
APARTMENTS,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-1709)
Submitted: April 15, 2004 Decided: April 22, 2004
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Johnny Milligan, Carolyn Milligan, Appellants Pro Se. James Alwin
Murphy, Cameron Scott Matheson, LECLAIR RYAN, PC, Richmond,
Virginia; Rebecca Everett Kuehn, LECLAIR RYAN, PC, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Johnny and Carolyn Milligan appeal from the order of the
district court denying their motion for relief from judgment filed
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3). Finding no error, we affirm.
This court reviews the denial of a motion for relief from
judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) for an abuse of discretion.
Heyman v. M.L. Mktg. Co., 116 F.3d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1997). To
succeed on a Rule 60(b) motion, a movant first “‘must show that his
motion is timely, that he has a meritorious defense to the action,
and that the opposing party would not be unfairly prejudiced by
having the judgment set aside.’” National Credit Union Admin.
Bd. v. Gray, 1 F.3d 262, 264 (4th Cir. 1993) (quoting Park Corp. v.
Lexington Ins. Co., 812 F.2d 894, 896 (4th Cir. 1987)). After
meeting these three threshold considerations,1 the movant must then
satisfy one of the six grounds for relief listed in Rule 60(b).
Id. at 266. The Milligans alleged fraud and misconduct as the
basis for relief.
Despite the Milligans’ repeated claims to the contrary,
our review of the record fails to disclose evidence of the fraud or
misconduct claimed by the Milligans. Accordingly, we conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
Milligans’ motion for relief from judgment. We affirm the judgment
1
A showing of “exceptional circumstances” sometimes is noted
as a fourth threshold. See National Credit Union, 1 F.3d at 264
(citing Werner v. Carbo, 731 F.2d 204, 207 (4th Cir. 1984)).
- 3 -
of the district court.2 We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
To the extent the Milligans again seek to appeal the district
court’s orders dated March 14, 2003, and June 19, 2003, their March
1, 2004, notice of appeal is not timely. Thus, we have no
jurisdiction to review those orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a).
- 4 -