Jones v. Administrative Office of the Courts

Fourth Circuit

Jones v. Administrative Office of the Courts

670 F. App'x 160

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 8, 2016

Docket16-1341

StatusUnpublished

This text of 670 F. App'x 160 (Jones v. Administrative Office of the Courts) 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

Jones v. Administrative Office of the Courts, 670 F. App'x 160 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rickey Nelson Jones appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil action alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and denying his motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem’l *161 Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 179-80 (4th Cir. 2009). We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008); Heyman v. M.L. Mktg. Co., 116 F.3d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1997). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jones v. Admin. Office, No. 1:15-cv-03336-CCB (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2016; Mar. 23, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Rickey Nelson Jones appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his civil action alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and denying his motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem’l *161 Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 179-80 (4th Cir. 2009). We review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277 (4th Cir. 2008); Heyman v. M.L. Mktg. Co., 116 F.3d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1997). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jones v. Admin. Office, No. 1:15-cv-03336-CCB (D. Md. Mar. 17, 2016; Mar. 23, 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

670 F. App'x 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-administrative-office-of-the-courts-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack