Langdon v. Malone

Fourth Circuit

Langdon v. Malone

98 F. App'x 252

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 2, 2004·No. No. 03-2493·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Langdon appeals from the district court’s order denying his post-judgment motions to compel discovery and to recuse. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Langdon v. Malone, No. CA-02-189-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 2003). We deny Appellees’ motion for sanctions. We deny Langdon’s motion to consolidate, motion to extend time to file a response to Appellees’ motion for sanctions, and motion to strike Appellees’ motion for sanctions. We also deny Lang-don’s motion for oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Langdon appeals from the district court’s order denying his post-judgment motions to compel discovery and to recuse. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Langdon v. Malone, No. CA-02-189-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 21, 2003). We deny Appellees’ motion for sanctions. We deny Langdon’s motion to consolidate, motion to extend time to file a response to Appellees’ motion for sanctions, and motion to strike Appellees’ motion for sanctions. We also deny Lang-don’s motion for oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Langdon v. Malone, 98 F. App'x 252 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

98 F. App'x 252 (Langdon v. Malone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.