Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Libby Demery appealed the district court's denial of her motions for postjudgment relief and recusal of the district judge. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Demery did not allege fraud warranting relief under Rule 60(d)(3). It denied Demery's request for oral argument, concluding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views4 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Libby Demery appealed the district court's denial of her motions for postjudgment relief and recusal of the district judge. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Demery did not allege fraud warranting relief under Rule 60(d)(3). It denied Demery's request for oral argument, concluding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-03-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-2347

    Original Title

    Libby Demery v. John McHugh, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Libby Demery appealed the district court's denial of her motions for postjudgment relief and recusal of the district judge. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Demery did not allege fraud warranting relief under Rule 60(d)(3). It denied Demery's request for oral argument, concluding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    9 views4 pages

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case in which Libby Demery appealed the district court's denial of her motions for postjudgment relief and recusal of the district judge. The appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling, finding that Demery did not allege fraud warranting relief under Rule 60(d)(3). It denied Demery's request for oral argument, concluding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-2347

    LIBBY A. DEMERY,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    JOHN M. MCHUGH, Secretary of the Army,
    Defendant Appellee,
    and
    KATHERINE ARCHULETA,
    Defendant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:13cv-02389-PWG)

    Submitted:

    March 17, 2016

    Decided:

    March 21, 2016

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Libby A. Demery, Appellant Pro Se.


    Alex Gordon, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, Allen F. Loucks,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Libby

    Demery

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    letter

    order

    denying her motions for Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3) relief and for
    recusal of the presiding district judge. *

    On appeal, we confine

    our review to the issues raised in Demerys informal briefs.


    See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

    We have reviewed the record in light of

    Demerys arguments and find no reversible error in the district


    courts conclusion that Demery did not allege fraud on the court
    warranting

    postjudgment

    relief

    under

    Rule

    60(d)(3).

    Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by


    the district court.

    Demery v. McHugh, No. 8:13-cv-02389-PWG

    (D. Md. filed Oct. 23, 2015 & entered Oct. 26, 2015).

    We deny

    Demerys motion requesting oral argument because the facts and

    Demerys informal briefs also address the courts


    underlying
    judgment
    dismissing
    her
    claims
    of
    unlawful
    discrimination, retaliation, and veterans preference violations
    in hiring, and its denial of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) relief.
    Because Demery did not timely appeal those orders, they are not
    properly before us. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B), 4(a)(1)(B),
    (4)(A)(iv); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 175-77 (4th Cir.
    2014).
    Further, insofar as Demery seeks appellate review of a
    sanctions request filed with the Department of Justice, such
    proceedings are not within this courts jurisdiction.

    legal
    before

    contentions
    this

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like