Laura Hammett v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC; Does, 1-99

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2638
___________________________
Laura Hammett
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC; Does, 1-99
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
___________________________
No. 23-3093
___________________________
Laura Hammett
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC; Does, 1-99
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
___________________________
No. 23-3432
___________________________
Laura Hammett
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

-- 1 of 3 --

v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC; Does, 1-99
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeals from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: May 29, 2024
Filed: June 5, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, Laura Hammett appeals the district court’s1
adverse grant of summary judgment on her claims under state law and the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, adverse grant of costs, and denial of her post-judgment
motion to correct errors in a transcript.
We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of her post-judgment motion because
the notice of appeal (NOA) as to that order was untimely. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1)(A) (NOA must be filed within 30 days after entry of order appealed); see also
Dieser v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 440 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (timely NOA is
1The Honorable Lee P. Rudofsky, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

mandatory and jurisdictional). After careful review of the record and the parties’
arguments on appeal in the other matters, we agree with the district court’s thorough
and well-reasoned analysis of Hammett’s claims, see Kuntz v. Rodenburg LLP, 838
F.3d 923, 924 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review); and we discern no error in the
grant of costs, see Dindinger v. Allsteel, Inc., 853 F.3d 414, 431 (8th Cir. 2017)
(standard of review). As to Hammett’s arguments challenging the district court’s
rulings on a host of other issues, we find no basis for reversal.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the denial of Hammett’s post-judgment
motion, and otherwise affirm. We also deny her pending motions.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --