Filed: Apr. 07, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7391 ANTHONY ANDREWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES C. FOX, District Judge; MS. LIBBY, Staff Attorney, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-247-5-H) Submitted: March 13, 2006 Decided: April 7, 2006 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7391 ANTHONY ANDREWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES C. FOX, District Judge; MS. LIBBY, Staff Attorney, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-247-5-H) Submitted: March 13, 2006 Decided: April 7, 2006 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. A..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7391 ANTHONY ANDREWS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JAMES C. FOX, District Judge; MS. LIBBY, Staff Attorney, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-247-5-H) Submitted: March 13, 2006 Decided: April 7, 2006 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Andrews, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Anthony Andrews appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the motions for abeyance as moot, deny the motion to recuse, and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Andrews v. Fox, No. CA-04-247-5-H (E.D.N.C. filed July 11, 2005 & entered July 14, 2005; filed Oct. 7, 2005 & entered Oct. 24, 2005). 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 -
