Filed: Dec. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1998 ERIC ALAN SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (1:14-cv-03509-JMC) Submitted: December 18, 2018 Decided: December 20, 2018 Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Alan Sanders, Appellant P
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1998 ERIC ALAN SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (1:14-cv-03509-JMC) Submitted: December 18, 2018 Decided: December 20, 2018 Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Alan Sanders, Appellant Pr..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1998 ERIC ALAN SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (1:14-cv-03509-JMC) Submitted: December 18, 2018 Decided: December 20, 2018 Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Alan Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Cheryl L. Behymer, Nicole P. Cantey, FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eric Sanders appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sanders v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., No. 1:14-cv-03509-JMC (D.S.C. Aug. 2, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
