Elezovic v. England , 200 F. App'x 193 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1395
HILDA M. ELEZOVIC,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
GORDON R. ENGLAND, Secretary, Department of
the Navy,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA-
03-3649-PJM)
Submitted: August 30, 2006 Decided: September 15, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Michael J. Snider, Ari Taragin, SNIDER & ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Kristine L. Sendek-Smith, Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Hilda M. Elezovic appeals the district court’s orders
granting summary judgment in favor of her employer and denying her
motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), in this employment
discrimination action. We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Elezovic alleged that her employer discriminated against
her on the basis of her race and national origin and retaliated
against her for engaging in protected activities. Elezovic’s
employer filed a motion for summary judgment, and, after receiving
numerous extensions of time to obtain new counsel and file a
response, Elezovic did not file a response. The district court
granted summary judgment in the employer’s favor, finding that some
of Elezovic’s claims were either unexhausted or untimely filed with
the agency. In any event, the district court concluded that
Elezovic failed to state a prima facie case of discrimination and
that, even if she had, her employer proffered a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Elezovic then filed a
Rule 60(b) motion, asserting that she failed to respond due to the
negligence of her attorney, Lisa Lyons Ward. The district court
denied Elezovic’s Rule 60(b) motion.
On appeal, Elezovic raises two issues: (1) “[w]hether the
District Court erred in denying [her] Rule 60B Motion” and
(2) “[w]hether the District Court erred in entering summary
judgment in favor of Defendant[] on [her] claims of
- 2 -
discrimination.” (Appellant’s Br. at 2). With regard to the
second issue, Elezovic presented no argument in her opening brief
challenging the grounds on which the district court relied in
granting summary judgment. We find that her failure to develop
such argument amounts to an abandonment of those issues on appeal.
Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A) (“[T]he argument . . . must contain
. . . appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with
citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the
appellant relies[.]”); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231,
241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (“Failure to comply with the specific
dictates of [Rule 28] with respect to a particular claim triggers
abandonment of that claim on appeal.”). To the extent Elezovic
asserts that the district court erred by not further extending the
time for her to respond, we find no abuse of discretion. See
Nguyen v. CNA Corp., 44 F.3d 234, 242 (4th Cir. 1995) (stating
standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
order granting summary judgment in favor of Elezovic’s employer.
Turning to Elezovic’s challenge to the district court’s
order denying Rule 60(b) relief, we dismiss this portion of the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction. When the United States or its
officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no
more than sixty 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
- 3 -
reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This
appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir.,
Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.
Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)).
The district court’s order denying Rule 60(b) relief was
entered on the docket on January 12, 2006. Elezovic, however, did
not file a notice of appeal from that order, nor did she amend her
previously filed notice of appeal. Because Elezovic failed to file
a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of
the appeal period, we dismiss this portion of the appeal.
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.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
- 4 -