2
1
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted November 12, 2013∗
Decided November 21, 2013
Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 13-1315 Appeal from the United
DORIS BROWN, States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois,
Plaintiff-Appellant, Eastern Division.
v. No. 07 C 1013
Samuel Der-Yeghiayan, Judge.
SHELLEY KOELLER,
Defendant-Appellee.
Order
We remanded this litigation in 2009 for a decision on the merits. Brown v. Varan, No.
08-3457 (7th Cir. Apr. 1, 2009) (nonprecedential disposition). In 2011 the district court
granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the suit. Plaintiff did
not appeal. A year later she filed a motion asking the district court to reopen the
∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After
examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.
App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
No. 13-1315 Page 2
litigation. The only source of authority for such a motion was Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6).
The district court denied the motion.
Plaintiff has appealed from that decision but does not mention the grounds on
which the district court acted. Instead she proceeds as if this were a belated appeal from
the 2011 judgment. That is not possible, however. Plaintiff maintains that she did not
receive notice of the judgment’s entry, but Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) allows only 180 days
for a motion to reopen the time to appeal, and plaintiff did not file anything until a year
after the judgment.
Arguments that could have been presented on appeal from the district court’s
original decision are not within the scope of this appeal. Only the decision denying the
post-judgment motion under Rule 60 is now reviewable, see Blue v. Electrical Workers,
676 F.3d 579, 582 (7th Cir. 2012), but plaintiff does not make any of the arguments that
could have justified relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 536–
38 (2005). The district court’s decision therefore is affirmed.