Tracy Wade v. United States , 599 F. App'x 115 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1500
TRACY E. WADE, Administratrix of the Estate of Richard
Brian Wade,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:12-cv-00608)
Submitted: March 30, 2015 Decided: April 10, 2015
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew C. Lindsay, Richard D. Lindsay, TABOR LINDSAY &
ASSOCIATES, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. R. Booth
Goodwin II, United States Attorney, Fred B. Westfall, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Tracy E. Wade appeals the district court’s orders
granting judgment to the Defendant after a bench trial and
denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion to alter or amend the
judgment. The Appellee originally contended that we lacked
jurisdiction over the appeal because it was not timely filed.
We previously ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs
addressing whether judgment was entered on a separate document
in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). We now affirm.
To comply with the Rule 58 separate document requirements,
“the essentials of a judgment or order [must be] set forth in a
written document separate from the court’s opinion or
memorandum.” Hughes v. Halifax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 823 F.2d 832,
835 (4th Cir. 1987). Because the district court did not enter
its judgment on a separate document, we have jurisdiction. See
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii); United States v. Little, 392
F.3d 671, 680 & n.15 (4th Cir. 2004); Caperton v. Beatrice
Pocahontas Coal Co., 585 F.2d 683, 690-91 (4th Cir. 1978).
Turning to the merits, we review “judgments stemming from a
bench trial under a mixed standard: factual findings are
reviewed for clear error, whereas conclusions of law are
reviewed de novo.” Makdessi v. Fields, __ F.3d __, 2015 WL
1062747, *4 (4th Cir. Mar. 12, 2015) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). “In cases in which a district court’s
2
factual findings turn on assessments of witness credibility or
the weighing of conflicting evidence during a bench trial, such
findings are entitled to even greater deference.” Helton v.
AT&T, Inc., 709 F.3d 343, 350 (4th Cir. 2013). We review the
denial of a Rule 59 motion for abuse of discretion. Jones v.
Southpeak Interactive Corp. of Del., 777 F.3d 658, 674 (4th Cir.
2015) (citation omitted); Wilkins v. Montgomery, 751 F.3d 214,
220 (4th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted).
We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, and we
conclude that the district court did not err or abuse its
discretion. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. See Wade v. United States, No. 3:12-cv-
00608 (S.D. W. Va. Apr. 28, 2014; Feb. 20, 2014). We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3