Hoang Taing v. PENNY PRITZKER, Honorable

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2233
HOANG TAING,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PENNY PRITZKER, Honorable; Secretary of Commerce; KATHRYN H.
ANDERSON, Honorable; Office of Civil Rights, CENHQ 3H068;
WILLIAM W. HATCHER, Honorable; U.S. Census Bureau/RCC; DANA
JAMES BOENTE, Honorable; US Acting Attorney; LORETTA E. LYNCH,
Honorable; Attorney General,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-01281-TSE-TCB)
Submitted: June 25, 2015 Decided: June 29, 2015
Before GREGORY, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Hoang Taing, Appellant Pro Se. Antonia Marie Konkoly, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Hoang Taing appeals the district court’s orders granting
summary judgment to Appellees and denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion for reconsideration in this employment discrimination
action. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
When the United States or its officer or agency is a party,
the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the
entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal
period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period
under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The district court’s order granting
summary judgment to Appellees was entered on the docket on July 7,
2014. The notice of appeal was filed on November 10, 2014. Because
Hoang Taing failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the order
granting summary judgment or to obtain an extension or reopening
of the appeal period, we dismiss this portion of the appeal for
lack of jurisdiction.
Turning to the order denying reconsideration, we have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm the denial of Rule 60(b) relief for the reasons stated by
the district court. Hoang Taing v. Pritzker, No. 1:13-cv-01231-
TSE-TCB (E.D. Va. filed Nov. 5, 2014; entered Nov. 6, 2014). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

-- 2 of 3 --

3
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --