Third Circuit disposition — 092339np-pdf

1
HLD-140 (August 2009) NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-2339
___________
EMERSON ELDER,
Appellant
vs.
NEW JERSEY TRANSIT CORP.
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.N.J. Civil No. 01-cv-04415)
District Judge: Honorable Joseph A. Greenaway
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
August 31, 2009
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 15, 2009)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM.
Emerson Elder, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey denying a post-judgment motion related to

-- 1 of 3 --

2
his employment discrimination action. We will affirm.
Elder filed an employment discrimination action against New Jersey Transit
Corp. claiming that he was not hired as a result of religious discrimination and in
retaliation for his previous legal actions against the company. The District Court granted
summary judgment for New Jersey Transit in an order entered March 23, 2004, and we
affirmed the District Court’s order.
On October 4, 2005, Elder filed a motion for reconsideration, which the
District Court treated as filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Local
Civil Rule 7.1, and denied as untimely and without merit. On March 17, 2008, Elder filed
a motion for a new hearing, which the District Court treated as filed pursuant to Rules
59(e) and 60(b), and also denied as untimely and without merit. Elder unsuccessfully
sought reconsideration of the denial of his March 17, 2008, motion.
On November 12, 2008, Elder filed yet another post-judgment motion
challenging the District Court’s March 23, 2004, order. The District Court treated the
motion as filed pursuant to Rules 59(e) or 60(b) and found the motion untimely and
without merit. This appeal followed.
The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Elder’s post-
judgment motion. Elder asserted an alleged conflict of interest between his appointed
counsel and New Jersey Transit and its counsel. We agree with the District Court that
Elder’s motion was untimely under Rule 59(e) because it was filed more than 10 days

-- 2 of 3 --

To the extent Elder seeks to appeal the denials of his earlier post-judgment motions,1
he did not timely appeal the District Court’s orders and we lack jurisdiction to review
them. 3
after the entry of the order granting summary judgment, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), and
untimely under Rule 60(b) because the motion was not filed within a reasonable time.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). Moreover, Elder’s motion repeated assertions that he had made
in his previous post-judgment motions, which the District Court had denied.1
Accordingly, because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we
will summarily affirm the District Court’s order.

-- 3 of 3 --