UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1344
HERSHEL L. BERRY; DONNA S. BERRY,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
KIMBERLY SECURITIES, INCORPORATED, a Pennsylvania
corporation with its principal place of business in New
York; KIMBERLY JEAN CARRELLA, a/k/a Kimberly Jean Misaraca;
SHANE ANDERSON CHAMBERS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. David A. Faber,
District Judge. (2:03-cv-00157)
Submitted: December 23, 2008 Decided: January 27, 2009
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua I. Barrett, Sean P. McGinley, Heather M. Langeland,
DITRAPANO, BARRETT & DIPIERO, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellants.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hershel L. Berry and Donna S. Berry appeal the
district court’s orders denying their motion to reopen and to
amend the complaint and for reconsideration. Although the
district court’s reliance on Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) was
misplaced, we conclude that the denial of relief was not an
abuse of discretion in light of the Berrys’ excessive delay in
seeking to amend the complaint and the absence of a valid reason
for such delay. See Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th
Cir. 2006) (stating standard of review for denial of motion to
amend complaint); Smith v. EMC Corp., 393 F.3d 590, 595 (5th
Cir. 2004) (“[A]t some point, time delay on the part of a
plaintiff [seeking to amend a complaint] can be procedurally
fatal.”). Accordingly, we affirm. 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