Dymond Thomas, proceeding pro se, appealed the district court's November 19, 2025, order denying his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to set aside a prior order dismissing his complaint. The underlying dismissal order was entered on June 17, 2025. Thomas filed his notice of appeal on December 10, 2025, well after the standard 60-day deadline for appeals in cases involving the United States. He also filed his Rule 60(b) motion after the 28-day window required to toll the appeal period. The district court denied the motion, and Thomas appealed that denial to the Fourth Circuit.
The Fourth Circuit confined its review to the issues raised in Thomas's informal brief, as required by Local Rule 34(b). The court found that Thomas's brief failed to challenge the specific reasons the district court provided for denying his Rule 60(b) motion. Citing Jackson v. Lightsey, the court held that this failure resulted in a forfeiture of appellate review regarding the denial of the motion. The court noted that even if review were not forfeited, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. Furthermore, the court addressed the jurisdictional issue regarding the underlying dismissal. The court explained that Thomas's appeal was untimely because he filed his notice of appeal on December 10, 2025, missing the August 18, 2025 deadline. Because the Rule 60(b) motion was not filed within 28 days of the dismissal, it did not toll the appeal period. Additionally, the court cited Aikens v. Ingram to state that an appeal from the denial of Rule 60(b) relief does not bring the underlying judgment up for review. Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to review the June 17 dismissal order.
The decision affirms the district court's denial of the Rule 60(b) motion and leaves the underlying dismissal order in place. It reinforces the strict procedural requirements for pro se litigants, particularly the necessity of challenging specific reasons in an informal brief and the importance of filing Rule 60(b) motions within 28 days to toll appeal deadlines. The ruling clarifies that a Rule 60(b) appeal does not revive jurisdiction over an underlying judgment that was not timely appealed.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download