ANDERSON v. JACKO, 11-2428. (2012)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20120928118
Visitors: 14
Filed: Sep. 28, 2012
Latest Update: Sep. 28, 2012
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charmaine L. Anderson appeals from the district court's orders dismissing her complaint and denying her "Motion to Not Dismiss" as moot since it was filed after judgment was entered in the case. After reviewing the record, we conclude that Anderson's "Motion to Not Dismiss" should have been liberally construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend. Accordingly, we remand for reconsideration of Anderson's
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charmaine L. Anderson appeals from the district court's orders dismissing her complaint and denying her "Motion to Not Dismiss" as moot since it was filed after judgment was entered in the case. After reviewing the record, we conclude that Anderson's "Motion to Not Dismiss" should have been liberally construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend. Accordingly, we remand for reconsideration of Anderson's ..
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charmaine L. Anderson appeals from the district court's orders dismissing her complaint and denying her "Motion to Not Dismiss" as moot since it was filed after judgment was entered in the case. After reviewing the record, we conclude that Anderson's "Motion to Not Dismiss" should have been liberally construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend. Accordingly, we remand for reconsideration of Anderson's Rule 59(e) motion, so construed. On remand, the district court may evaluate whether Anderson's July 28, 2006 letter, submitted within an attachment to her Motion, justifies setting aside the underlying dismissal order insofar as it alleges that her supervisor's secretary would sabotage her work and that of "several other Black secretaries." 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.
REMANDED.
Source: Leagle
