Cline v. Binder

Fourth Circuit

Cline v. Binder

13 F. App'x 208

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJuly 19, 2001

DocketNo. 01-1123

StatusPublished

This text of 13 F. App'x 208 (Cline v. Binder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cline v. Binder, 13 F. App'x 208 (4th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Walter Cline and William Hagler appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to reconsider under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) in their civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Cline v. Binder, No. CA-96-811-5 BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 21, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court [209]*209and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Walter Cline and William Hagler appeal the district court’s order denying their motion to reconsider under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) in their civil action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Cline v. Binder, No. CA-96-811-5 BO (E.D.N.C. Dec. 21, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court [209]*209and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 F. App'x 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cline-v-binder-ca4-2001.