Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Boyd E. Graves v. United States of America Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Montgomery County (Md) Human Relations Commission Bidnet, 89-3304 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 89-3304 Visitors: 30
Filed: Mar. 27, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 898 F.2d 145 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Boyd E. GRAVES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Defendants-Appellees, and Montgomery County (MD) Human Relations Commission; Bidnet, Defendants. No
More

898 F.2d 145
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Boyd E. GRAVES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES of America; Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, Defendants-Appellees,
and
Montgomery County (MD) Human Relations Commission; Bidnet,
Defendants.

No. 89-3304.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 20, 1989.
Decided: Feb. 28, 1990.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 27, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert F. Murray, Senior District Judge. (C/A No. 88-1200-HM)

Boyd E. Graves, appellant pro se.

Nicholas M. Inzeo, Kathleen Oram, Susan Lisabeth Starr, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, for appellees.

D.Md.

AFFIRMED.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Boyd E. Graves appeals from the district court's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. Our review of the record discloses that this appeal is without merit, as there was no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, 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.

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