Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Dick v. Matthews, 97-1291 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-1291 Visitors: 7
Filed: Oct. 13, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1291 RONALD S. DICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus F. DAVID MATTHEWS, Secretary, Department of Health, Education and Welfare; JAMES B. CARDWELL, Chairman, Social Security Adminis- tration; ROBERT HAMPTON, Chairman, Civil Ser- vice Commission, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-76-512-H) Submitted: Se
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1291 RONALD S. DICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus F. DAVID MATTHEWS, Secretary, Department of Health, Education and Welfare; JAMES B. CARDWELL, Chairman, Social Security Adminis- tration; ROBERT HAMPTON, Chairman, Civil Ser- vice Commission, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Harvey II, Senior District Judge. (CA-76-512-H) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 13, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald S. Dick, Appellant Pro Se. Allen F. Loucks, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Ronald S. Dick appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the order of the district court because Dick has failed to show entitlement to relief as required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Dick v. Matthews, No. CA-76-512-H (D. Md. Feb. 11, 1997). We deny Dick’s motion requesting that the “appeal be decided by a series of cases before the MSPB,” that “issue 1 of this appeal be enforced against appellee,” and to “Close Case Without Findings Against SSA;” we also deny Appellees’ motion to dismiss. We dis- pense 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