Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Wilder v. Sebelius, 09-1310 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-1310 Visitors: 27
Filed: Nov. 03, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1310 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant - Appellee. No. 09-1366 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:97-cv-01809-FNS;
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1310 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant - Appellee. No. 09-1366 LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:97-cv-01809-FNS; 1:96-cv-03472-FNS) Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: November 3, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Tamera Lynn Fine, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motions to reopen two civil actions that have been closed for more than ten years. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wilder v. Sebelius, Nos. 1:97-cv-01809-FNS; 1:96-cv-03472-FNS (D. Md. Mar. 4, 2009). Wilder’s motions for rehearing and rehearing en banc, for appointment of counsel, and for an excusable neglect waiver are denied. 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 3
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