Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Zhang v. Science & Technology Corporation, 10-1579 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 10-1579 Visitors: 24
Filed: Oct. 20, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1579 ZHENLU ZHANG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION; COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION; NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION; J. C. MILLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:08-cv-01716-DKC) Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 20, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and D
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1579 ZHENLU ZHANG, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION; COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION; NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION; J. C. MILLER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:08-cv-01716-DKC) Submitted: October 14, 2010 Decided: October 20, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zhenlu Zhang, Appellant Pro Se. J.C. Miller, THOMPSON & HINE, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Larry Robert Seegull, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Jason Daniel Medinger, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; C. Dennis Southard, IV, THOMPSON & HINE, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Zhenlu Zhang appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for leave to file a Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 60(b) motion for reconsideration and a motion for sanctions after the imposition of a pre-filing injunction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Zhang v. Science & Tech. Corp., No. 8:08-cv-01716-DKC (D. Md. Apr. 23, 2010). 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