Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Sherwin v. US Dept Air Force, 02-1589 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1589 Visitors: 11
Filed: Sep. 10, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1589 CHARLES T. SHERWIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, Defendant - Appellee, and RONALD G. SPROVERO; RONALD L. BILLMYER; R.S. BURRUS; A.D. TALLEY; B. R. HENDERSON; CELIA SMITH; LAVERNE HARPER; M. R. PETERS; ROBERT CUTRELL; ROBERT STROEBEL; DONALD ROBINSON; JEFF OSBORNE; BRAD ADAMS; WILLIAM WALLER, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1589 CHARLES T. SHERWIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, Defendant - Appellee, and RONALD G. SPROVERO; RONALD L. BILLMYER; R.S. BURRUS; A.D. TALLEY; B. R. HENDERSON; CELIA SMITH; LAVERNE HARPER; M. R. PETERS; ROBERT CUTRELL; ROBERT STROEBEL; DONALD ROBINSON; JEFF OSBORNE; BRAD ADAMS; WILLIAM WALLER, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-90-34-3-BR) Submitted: September 5, 2002 Decided: September 10, 2002 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles T. Sherwin, Appellant Pro Se. Eileen Coffey Moore, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Charles T. Sherwin appeals the district court’s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion and motion for correction of the docket. We have reviewed the record and find the district court did not abuse its discretion because the matters Sherwin seeks to challenge became final in 1995, and there is no basis for reopening the case at this late date. 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. 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