Banks v. Chicago Bd. of Education

Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s Rule 60(b) motion that essentially sought reversal of Dist. Ct.’s granting of defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in Title VII action alleging race discrimination and retaliation arising out of plaintiff’s employment as teacher. While plaintiff had originally filed Rule 59(e) motion, said motion was filed one day late, such that said motion could only be treated as Rule 60(b) motion. Moreover, because instant Rule 60(b) motion did not toll applicable period for filing any notice of appeal, portion of plaintiff's notice of appeal seeking review of granting of summary judgment motion was untimely, and while portion of notice of appeal seeking review of denial of Rule 60(b) motion was timely, Dist. Ct.’s denial of said motion was proper, where alleged errors contained in said motion pertained only to matters regarding propriety of summary judgment that could have been raised in timely notice of appeal.