UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-2137
JOYCE B. BREDELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary of Interior; UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (1:07-cv-00718-LMB)
Submitted: May 29, 2008 Decided: August 25, 2008
Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reuben B. Collins, II, COLLINS & TALLEY, LLC, LaPlata, Maryland,
for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Lauren A.
Wetzler, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joyce B. Bredell appeals the district court’s order
denying her motion for extension of time to file a second amended
complaint and dismissing her civil action with prejudice. On
appeal, Bredell maintains that (1) the district court erred in
denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) motion for extension to time to
file a second amended complaint; and (2) the proposed second
amended complaint, which she was denied leave to file without
prejudice, complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and did not constitute
a frivolous complaint. We affirm.
Under Fed R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B), “[w]hen an act may or
must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good
cause, extend the time on motion made after the time has expired if
the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” This court
has noted that “‘[e]xcusable neglect’ is not easily demonstrated,
nor was it intended to be.” Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours &
Co., 76 F.3d 530, 534 (4th Cir. 1996). The determination of
whether neglect is excusable “is at bottom an equitable one, taking
account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s
omission,” including “the danger of prejudice to the [nonmoving
party], the length of the delay and its potential impact on
judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether
it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the
movant acted in good faith.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick
-2-
Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). “The most important
of the factors identified in Pioneer for determining whether
‘neglect’ is ‘excusable’ is the reason for the failure to [timely]
file.” Thompson, 76 F.3d at 534.
This court reviews the denial of a motion for enlargement
of time under Rule 6(b) for an abuse of discretion. United
States v. Borromeo, 945 F.2d 750, 754 (4th Cir. 1991); see also
Thompson, 76 F.3d at 532 n.2; James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239
(4th Cir. 1993) (finding that district court abuses its discretion
if it fails or refuses to exercise its discretion or relies on
erroneous legal or factual premise in the exercise of its
discretionary authority). We have reviewed the record, the
parties’ briefs, and the materials submitted in the joint appendix,
and find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Bredell’s Rule 6(b) motion.
Bredell also maintains that her second amended complaint
was in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and did not constitute a
frivolous complaint. We note, however, that the district court did
not sanction counsel under Rule 11; rather, the court simply
instructed counsel to fully comply with the requirements of Fed. R.
Civ. P. 11 before filing any further complaints in this civil
action. The district court’s admonitions were appropriate and
Bredell raises no viable issue for appeal in this regard. To the
extent Bredell argues the district court erred in its earlier order
-3-
in denying without prejudice her motion to file a second amended
complaint, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion
in light of the errors evident in the proposed complaint. See
Szaller v. American Nat’l Red Cross, 293 F.3d 148, 152 n.2 (4th
Cir. 2002) (reviewing district court’s decision to deny leave to
file amended complaint for abuse of discretion).
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Bredell v. Kempthorne, No. 1:07-cv-00718-LMB (E.D.
Va. Oct. 3, 2007). 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
-4-