Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Wilder v. Gage, 08-1117 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-1117 Visitors: 22
Filed: Aug. 25, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1117 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHN GAGE, President, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1923; JOE FLYNN, Vice President, AFGE Local 1923, AFL-CIO; ANN ROBINSON, Vice President, AFGE 1923 Local, AFL-CIO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:97-cv-02354-
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1117 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JOHN GAGE, President, American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 1923; JOE FLYNN, Vice President, AFGE Local 1923, AFL-CIO; ANN ROBINSON, Vice President, AFGE 1923 Local, AFL-CIO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:97-cv-02354-FNS) Submitted: August 21, 2008 Decided: August 25, 2008 Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Francis Joseph Collins, KAHN, SMITH & COLLINS, PA, Baltimore, Maryland; Mark D. Roth, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, Washington, DC, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to reopen a civil action and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wilder v. Gage, No. 1:97-cv-02354-FNS (D. Md. Dec. 5, 2007; Dec. 17, 2007). Wilder’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer