Restoney Robinson v. Peggy Jones

21 F.3d 424, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 15856, 1994 WL 142473
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 21, 1994
Docket94-6204
StatusPublished

This text of 21 F.3d 424 (Restoney Robinson v. Peggy Jones) 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
Restoney Robinson v. Peggy Jones, 21 F.3d 424, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 15856, 1994 WL 142473 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

21 F.3d 424
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Restoney ROBINSON, Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
Peggy JONES, Defendant Appellee.

No. 94-6204.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 29, 1994.
Decided: April 21, 1994.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Chief District Judge. (CA-91-532-CRT-F).

Restoney Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.

E.D.N.C.

AFFIRMED.

Before HALL, WILKINSON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm.* We dispense with 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.

*

The motion for reconsideration was filed seven months after this Court issued its final decision affirming the district court's order granting summary judgment for Defendant. Robinson v. Jones, No. 93-6234 (4th Cir. June 23, 1993) (unpublished). Because Appellant failed to provide a valid reason for delay, the motion was untimely. McLawhorn v. John W. Daniel & Co., 924 F.2d 535, 538 (4th Cir.1991)

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 F.3d 424, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 15856, 1994 WL 142473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/restoney-robinson-v-peggy-jones-ca4-1994.