Daniels v. Caldwell

Fourth Circuit

Daniels v. Caldwell

645 F. App'x 293

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided April 21, 2016·No. No. 15-7884·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Joseph A. Daniels appeals the district court’s order denying his “Motion for Judgment” that the district court construed as motion for relief under Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for-the reasons stated by the district court. Daniels v. Caldwell, No. 3:14-cv-00856-REP-RCY, 2015 WL 7283121 (E.D.Va. Nov. 16, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this [294] court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Joseph A. Daniels appeals the district court’s order denying his “Motion for Judgment” that the district court construed as motion for relief under Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for-the reasons stated by the district court. Daniels v. Caldwell, No. 3:14-cv-00856-REP-RCY, 2015 WL 7283121 (E.D.Va. Nov. 16, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this [294] court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Daniels v. Caldwell, 645 F. App'x 293 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

645 F. App'x 293 (Daniels v. Caldwell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.