Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-6-2009 Lawrence Wilder Sr. v. Michael Tittle Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-2557 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009 Recommended Citation "Lawrence Wilder Sr. v. Michael Tittle" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1765. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1765 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. BLD-76 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 08-2557 ___________ LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, Sr., Appellant v. MICHAEL TITTLE; JANICE TITTLE; MONIQUE CELESTE THOMAS ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 98-03811) District Judge: Honorable Dennis M. Cavanaugh ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 January 15, 2009 Before: MCKEE, FISHER and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: March 6, 2009) _________ OPINION _________ PER CURIAM Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying his motion to reopen his case that had been dismissed in 1999.  Wilder filed the underlying action in 1998 in the District Court, and the docket indicates that the presiding judge granted in forma pauperis status and dismissed his complaint. Wilder appealed, and this Court affirmed in an opinion dated July 16, 1999. On January 2, 2008, Wilder filed a motion to reopen his appeal, alleging that he was unable to pursue his claim due to a disability. The District Court determined that Wilder had failed to establish why his case should be reopened, and we agree. Wilder asserts that he was unable to pursue his claim, but that is not so because he completed an appeal before this Court. Nor does he explain why he should be allowed to relitigate claims that were previously considered by both the District Court and this Court. Accordingly, Wilder’s appeal presents no substantial question, and we will summarily affirm. Wilder’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 2