Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
02-3196•USA v. Robert Lee Norman
02-3196Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit31.10.2005
1The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 04-2637
___________
Juanita Sims, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Eastern District of Arkansas.
Cedar Park Elementary, *
* [UNPUBLISHED]
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: October 7, 2005
Filed: October 20, 2005
___________
Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Juanita Sims filed a motion to reconsider more than ten days after dismissal of
her Title VII action as untimely, attaching her right-to-sue letter from the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The district court 1 denied her
motion, and Sims appeals. Liberally construing her motion to reconsider as a Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion, we conclude the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying reconsideration. See Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161,
164-65, 169 (8th Cir. 1988) (construing reconsideration motion filed more than 10
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
days after entry of judgment under Rule 60(b); appeal from denial of Rule 60(b)
motion does not raise underlying judgment for review, and review is for abuse of
discretion); Brooks v. Ferguson-Florissant Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 903, 904-05 (8th Cir.
1997) (where Title VII action was dismissed as untimely in light of date alleged for
receipt of EEOC right-to-sue letter, it was not abuse of discretion to deny plaintiff’s
reconsideration motion, in which he attempted to correct date by referring to mailing
date of EEOC letter; “while [plaintiff] represented himself and may have had
difficulty with procedural rules, the motion to dismiss provided him notice that the
receipt date was critical”).
Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.