Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

88-2126 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 88-2126 Visitors: 15
Filed: Feb. 12, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 896 F.2d 1367 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Niels H. OSTER, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services; Richard P. Kusserow, Inspector General, United States Department of Health and Human Ser
More

896 F.2d 1367
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Niels H. OSTER, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Louis W. SULLIVAN, Secretary, Department of Health and Human
Services; Richard P. Kusserow, Inspector General, United
States Department of Health and Human Services; and the
Medical Society of Virginia Review Organization, Inc.,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-2126.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 19, 1989.
Decided: Feb. 12, 1990.

Niels H. Oster, appellant pro se.

Frederick Warren Beck, III, Steven D. Gravely, Seawell, Dalton, Hughes & Timms; Jessica Sanders Jones, Joseph Marvin Spivey, III, Hunton & Williams; Robert William Jaspen, Office of the United States Attorney, for appellees.

Before K.K. HALL, PHILLIPS and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Dr. Niels Oster appeals the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) in connection with its denial of attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2142. The district court's denial of a Rule 60(b) motion may only be reversed upon a showing of abuse of discretion. Harman v. Pauley, 678 F.2d 479, 480-81 (4th Cir.1982). A Rule 60(b) motion will only be granted if the movant shows exceptional circumstances. Ackerman v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199-200 (1950); Werner v. Carbo, 731 F.2d 204, 206-07 (4th Cir.1982). Oster has shown no exceptional circumstances which would warrant granting his motion for reconsideration. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reconsider its earlier order. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the dispositive issues recently have been decided authoritatively.

2

AFFIRMED.

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