Marilynn M. McRae v. DONNIE HARRISON, Sheriff

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1794
MARILYNN M. MCRAE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DONNIE HARRISON, Sheriff,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
SAMUEL B. HIGDON; GENE D. BUTLER,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:17-cv-00023-FL)
Submitted: January 9, 2024 Decided: April 8, 2024
Before GREGORY and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marilynn M. McRae, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Marilynn M. McRae appeals the district court’s order denying her motions for relief
from the judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), (b), 79.* Limiting our review to the
issues raised in the informal brief, see 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170,
177 (4th Cir. 2014), we have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion in the
district court’s denial of those motions, see Aikens, 652 F.3d at 501 (stating standard of
review); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1) (establishing one-year limit on filing of Rule 60(b)(1)-(3)
motions). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. McRae v. Harrison, No. 5:17-
cv-00023-FL (E.D.N.C. May 31, 2023). 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
* To the extent McRae seeks to challenge the district court’s prior grant of summary
judgment to Appellee Donnie Harrison on McRae’s claims, or the court’s denial of her
May 2022 Rule 60(b) motion, those orders are not properly before us in this appeal. See
United States v. Cannady, 63 F.4th 259, 266 (4th Cir. 2023) (discussing mandate rule);
Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) (“[A]n appeal from denial of Rule
60(b) relief does not bring up the underlying judgment for review.” (internal quotation
marks omitted)); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (“[T]he timely filing of a
notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.”).

-- 2 of 2 --