Narrative Opinion Summary
Rodney Lail, Ricky Stephens, Marguerite Stephens, James Spencer, Irene Santa-croce, and Doris Holt appeal the district court's denial of their motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) for relief from a case dismissal due to a settlement agreement, as well as a motion to disqualify the district court judge. The appellate review is limited to issues raised in the Appellants' brief, which did not contest the district court's determination that the Rule 60(b) motion was untimely. Consequently, the appellate court affirms the district court's order regarding this motion. Furthermore, upon reviewing the record concerning the disqualification of the district court judge, the appellate court finds no error and affirms that order as well. The Appellants' emergency ex parte request for a writ of mandamus is denied. Oral argument is deemed unnecessary as the case facts and legal issues are adequately presented in the submitted materials. The decision is affirmed.
Legal Issues Addressed
Disqualification of a District Court Judgesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court finds no error in the district court's decision regarding the disqualification of the judge and affirms the order.
Reasoning: Furthermore, upon reviewing the record concerning the disqualification of the district court judge, the appellate court finds no error and affirms that order as well.
Emergency Ex Parte Request for Writ of Mandamussubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court denies the Appellants' emergency ex parte request for a writ of mandamus.
Reasoning: The Appellants' emergency ex parte request for a writ of mandamus is denied.
Necessity of Oral Argumentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court determines that oral argument is unnecessary because the case facts and legal issues are adequately presented in the submitted materials.
Reasoning: Oral argument is deemed unnecessary as the case facts and legal issues are adequately presented in the submitted materials.
Relief from Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court affirms the district court's denial of Appellants' Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a case dismissal, as the motion was deemed untimely and this issue was not contested in the Appellants' brief.
Reasoning: The appellate review is limited to issues raised in the Appellants' brief, which did not contest the district court's determination that the Rule 60(b) motion was untimely.