Background
Esther and William Yates sought permission to file a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for relief from the judgment in their underlying removed civil action. A previously imposed prefiling injunction required them to obtain leave before filing the motion.
The Yateses also requested an expedited ruling on their proposed Rule 60(b) motion. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied their requests, and they appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order. After reviewing the record, the court concluded that there was no reversible error in the denial of leave to file the Rule 60(b) motion or in the denial of the request for an expedited ruling.
The appellate court also denied as unnecessary the Yateses’ motion to supplement the record with materials they had proffered in the district court. It decided the appeal without oral argument because the submitted materials adequately presented the facts and legal contentions and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Key Takeaways
- The Fourth Circuit upheld the district court’s enforcement of the previously imposed prefiling injunction.
- The court found no reversible error in denying the Yateses leave to pursue Rule 60(b) relief.
- The decision is unpublished and is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.
Why It Matters
The decision leaves in place the district court’s refusal to permit another post-judgment motion in the underlying case. It also illustrates that a litigant subject to a prefiling injunction may be denied permission to pursue Rule 60(b) relief when the district court’s decision contains no reversible error.