Filed: Jul. 15, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1231 STARSHA SEWELL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JOHN HOWARD, SR., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (8:12-cv-02736-JFM) Submitted: July 1, 2014 Decided: July 15, 2014 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Starsha Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1231 STARSHA SEWELL, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. JOHN HOWARD, SR., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (8:12-cv-02736-JFM) Submitted: July 1, 2014 Decided: July 15, 2014 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Starsha Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1231
STARSHA SEWELL,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
JOHN HOWARD, SR.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (8:12-cv-02736-JFM)
Submitted: July 1, 2014 Decided: July 15, 2014
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Starsha Sewell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Starsha Sewell appeals the district court’s order
denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) motion seeking relief from
the district court’s order remanding this action to the state
court. We have reviewed the record and find that Sewell failed
to make the showing necessary to obtain relief pursuant to Rule
60(b). See Dowell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Auto. Ins. Co.,
993
F.2d 46, 48 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the district court
did not abuse its discretion, and we affirm. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2