Filed: Jun. 06, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2395 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PEARL B. MATTHEWS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 02-1411 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PEARL B. MATTHEWS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-137-5-BO) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002 Before WIL
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2395 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PEARL B. MATTHEWS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 02-1411 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PEARL B. MATTHEWS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-137-5-BO) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002 Before WILK..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2395 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PEARL B. MATTHEWS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 02-1411 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus PEARL B. MATTHEWS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-95-137-5-BO) Submitted: May 30, 2002 Decided: June 6, 2002 Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pearl B. Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. G. Norman Acker, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Pearl B. Matthews appeals the district court’s orders denying her motions filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), in which she sought to vacate the court’s prior orders in this foreclosure action by the government. 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. United States v. Matthews, No. CA-95-137-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Nov. 5, 2001; Apr. 15, 2002). 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