Filed: Jun. 15, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2319 JOHN STERLING PETTENGILL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CITY OF RICHWOOD’S FEDERAL SEWER PROJECT; WEST VIRGINIA DEVELOPMENT OFFICE; THE SEWER TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, of West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:07-cv-00290) Submitted: M
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2319 JOHN STERLING PETTENGILL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CITY OF RICHWOOD’S FEDERAL SEWER PROJECT; WEST VIRGINIA DEVELOPMENT OFFICE; THE SEWER TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, of West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:07-cv-00290) Submitted: Ma..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2319 JOHN STERLING PETTENGILL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CITY OF RICHWOOD’S FEDERAL SEWER PROJECT; WEST VIRGINIA DEVELOPMENT OFFICE; THE SEWER TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, of West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection, Defendants – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:07-cv-00290) Submitted: May 22, 2009 Decided: June 15, 2009 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Sterling Pettengill, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Sterling Pettengill appeals the district court’s order denying his motions to reopen his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Pettengill v. City of Richwood’s Fed. Sewer Project, No. 2:07- cv-00290 (S.D. W. Va. Nov. 13, 2008). 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
