Filed: Mar. 13, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2371 DAWN FIGMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SPRINT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-01-3) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dawn Figman, Appellant Pro Se. Neal Lawrence Walters, Char
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2371 DAWN FIGMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SPRINT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-01-3) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dawn Figman, Appellant Pro Se. Neal Lawrence Walters, Charl..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2371 DAWN FIGMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SPRINT, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-01-3) Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dawn Figman, Appellant Pro Se. Neal Lawrence Walters, Charlottesville, Virginia; Timothy J. Nieman, RHOADS & SIMON, L.L.P., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dawn Figman appeals the district court’s order denying her Motion for Relief of Judgment Order filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Figman v. Sprint, No. CA-01-3 (W.D. Va. Nov. 13, 2002). We deny Figman’s motion for leave to amend her informal brief and her motions for an extension of time. 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
