Filed: Jun. 10, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1392 TYRONE ANDREWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-96- 3321-L) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 10, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. Don
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1392 TYRONE ANDREWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-96- 3321-L) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 10, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. Donn..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1392 TYRONE ANDREWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-96- 3321-L) Submitted: May 28, 1998 Decided: June 10, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. Donna Carol Sanger, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his "Sup- plemental Request for Leave to File Opposition," which the court properly construed as a motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Andrews v. EEOC, No. CA-96-3321-L (D. Md. Nov. 4; Feb. 25, 1998). 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
