UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1235
RONNIE L. EDWARDS; PAULA E. NICKENS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
ROBERTS-ROBERTS ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
MICHAEL ROBERTS; KAY GABBERT,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-02-4078-8-AW)
Submitted: July 29, 2005 Decided: August 25, 2005
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Ronnie L. Edwards, Paula E. Nickens, Appellants Pro Se. Marie
Celeste Bruce, RIFKIN, LIVINGSTON, LEVITAN & SILVER, LLC,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Ronnie L. Edwards and Paula E. Nickens appeal the
district court’s orders granting their former employer’s motion for
summary judgment and denying their motion for reconsideration in
their civil action in which they alleged employment discrimination
and retaliation claims. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
The court’s order that granted summary judgment in favor
of the employer was entered on the court’s docket on March 8, 2004.
Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), the Appellants had thirty days in
which to appeal that order. Even if the Appellants were not aware
of the court’s final order until October 29, 2004, they never moved
for reopening of the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).
Further, even had the Appellants explicitly requested reopening
under Rule 4(a)(6)(A), the district court would have been unable to
do so because the Appellants could not satisfy the time limits set
forth in that subsection. Therefore, their notice of appeal filed
in the district court on February 18, 2005, was untimely as to the
court’s order entered on March 8, 2004. We therefore dismiss the
appeal as untimely as to that order.
The notice of appeal is timely as to the court’s
January 26, 2005 order that denied the Appellants’ motion to
reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error as to the court’s denial of
that motion. Accordingly, we affirm that order substantially on
- 3 -
the reasoning stated by the district court.* See Edwards v.
Roberts-Roberts Assoc., LLC, No. CA-02-4078-8-AW (D. Md. filed Jan.
26, 2005 & entered Jan. 27, 2005). We deny the Appellants’ motion
to strike the Appellee’s brief. 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.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
*
We disagree with the district court’s analysis that its local
rule rendered Appellants’ motion to reconsider untimely. The local
rule provides: “Except as otherwise provided in Fed. R. Civ. P. 60,
any motion to reconsider any order issued by the Court shall be
filed with the Clerk not later than 10 days after entry of the
order.” Local Rule 105(10) (D. Md. 2004). Rule 60(b) provides
“[t]he motion shall be made within a reasonable time” and for
limited reasons “not more than one year after the judgment, order
or proceeding was entered or taken.” Nevertheless, we conclude
that the Appellants were not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b).
- 4 -