Filed: May 03, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7722 RESTONEY ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TERRY WOOD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-99-445) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Restoney Ro
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7722 RESTONEY ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TERRY WOOD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-99-445) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Restoney Rob..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-7722
RESTONEY ROBINSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
TERRY WOOD,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CA-99-445)
Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001
Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Cir-
cuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Restoney Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Restoney Robinson appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion for reconsideration of an order allowing him to file
papers in a case that already was closed. Our review of the record
discloses no abuse of discretion. National Org. for Women v.
Operation Rescue,
47 F.3d 667, 669 (4th Cir. 1995) (denial of Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accord-
ingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2