Filed: Jul. 31, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1409 ABDUL AZIZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ORBITAL SCIENCES CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-97-1769-A) Submitted: July 26, 2001 Decided: July 31, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Abdul Aziz, Appellant Pro Se. Jeff
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1409 ABDUL AZIZ, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ORBITAL SCIENCES CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-97-1769-A) Submitted: July 26, 2001 Decided: July 31, 2001 Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Abdul Aziz, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffr..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1409
ABDUL AZIZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ORBITAL SCIENCES CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.
(CA-97-1769-A)
Submitted: July 26, 2001 Decided: July 31, 2001
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Abdul Aziz, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Eden Weinstein, ECKERT,
SEAMANS, CHERIN & MELLOTT, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Abdul Aziz appeals the district court’s denial of a post judg-
ment motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The district
court originally dismissed the action as untimely filed, and this
court affirmed. Aziz v. Orbital Sciences Corp., No. 98-1281,
1998
WL 736469 (4th Cir. Oct. 19, 1998) (unpublished).
We review denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discre-
tion. Eberhardt v. Integrated Design & Constr., Inc.,
167 F.3d
861, 869 (4th Cir. 1999). Having reviewed the district court’s
order denying the motion, we conclude that the court did not abuse
its discretion in denying the requested relief. Therefore, we deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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.
DISMISSED
2