Jackson v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.

Fourth Circuit

Jackson v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.

667 F. App'x 423

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided August 1, 2016·No. No. 16-1536·Published

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Janice Jackson appeals the district court’s order denying her third amended motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) of the district court’s order denying her request for a preliminary injunction regarding her eviction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jackson v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co., No. 8:14-cv-03155-TDC, 2016 WL 1446783 (D. Md. Apr. 13, 2016). 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

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Janice Jackson appeals the district court’s order denying her third amended motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) of the district court’s order denying her request for a preliminary injunction regarding her eviction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jackson v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co., No. 8:14-cv-03155-TDC, 2016 WL 1446783 (D. Md. Apr. 13, 2016). 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

Jackson v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 667 F. App'x 423 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

667 F. App'x 423 (Jackson v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.