Lorna C. Claycomb v. PLAYTEX On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of…

BLD-066 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-3620
___________
LORNA C. CLAYCOMB,
Appellant
v.
PLAYTEX
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-00120)
District Judge: Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
December 3, 2009
Before: MCKEE, RENDELL and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 25, 2010)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Lorna Claycomb appeals pro se from a District Court order denying her motion to
reopen a case that was decided more than two years ago. For substantially the same
reasons, we will affirm.
On June 20, 2007, the District Court entered judgment granting Defendant-

-- 1 of 3 --

On the same date, Appellant also filed a motion for extension of time in the District1
Court, which was docketed as a motion to reopen the appeal time. The District Court
denied the motion.
2
Appellee’s motion for summary judgement on all claims. Appellant filed a request to
reopen the case, which the District Court construed as a motion for reconsideration and
denied it. Appellant filed a letter in this Court, which was construed as a motion for
extension of time pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This Court remanded the matter to
the District Court, and on June 27, 2008, the District Court issued an order concluding
that Appellant’s letter could not meet the requirements of Rule 4(a)(6), and that Appellant
was not entitled to an extension of time. On January 20, 2009, Appellant filed a notice of
appeal, which was dismissed as untimely filed. Appellant then returned to the District1
Court to file another motion to reopen the case, which the District Court construed as a
motion for reconsideration of its June 2007 order. The court denied Appellant’s motion
citing relevant case law standards. Appellant timely appealed.
“A judgment may be altered or amended if the party seeking reconsideration shows
at least one of the following grounds: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2)
the availability of new evidence that was not available when the court granted the motion
for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent
manifest injustice.” See Max’s Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 176
F.3d 669, 678 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52
F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). Although Appellant alleges various difficulties with her

-- 2 of 3 --

In her Notice of Appeal, Appellant states, “I did not work with Seafood Inc. or North2
River Inc.” To clarify, these companies are not parties to this suit nor were they
Appellant’s employers; they are the case names relied on by this Court and the District
Court to decide this instant matter.
3
mail, medical issues, and other unfortunate life matters, she has not shown that any of the
grounds necessary for reconsideration apply. Her mere disagreement with the outcome of
the District Court’s opinion is not the proper basis for granting a motion for
reconsideration. Id. As she does not raise any substantial questions on appeal, we will
affirm the District Court’s order.2

-- 3 of 3 --