Filed: Dec. 20, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7438 RANDAL N. WIIDEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT A. WATSON, Commander, Salvation Army, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-00-1127-AM) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 20, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. R
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7438 RANDAL N. WIIDEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ROBERT A. WATSON, Commander, Salvation Army, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (CA-00-1127-AM) Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 20, 2000 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ra..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7438
RANDAL N. WIIDEMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ROBERT A. WATSON, Commander, Salvation Army,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge.
(CA-00-1127-AM)
Submitted: December 14, 2000 Decided: December 20, 2000
Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randal N. Wiideman, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Randal N. Wiideman appeals from the district court’s order
denying his Rule 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration of the
court’s prior order dismissing as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1) (West Supp. 1999), his complaint filed under 42
U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and
the district court’s opinion and find no abuse of discretion. In
Re Burnley,
988 F.2d 1 (4th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we affirm on
the reasoning of the district court. Wiideman v. Watson, No. CA-
00-1127-AM (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 25, 2000; entered Sept. 26, 2000).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2