Robertson v. Franchot

Fourth Circuit

Robertson v. Franchot

334 F. App'x 565

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided October 23, 2009·No. No. 09-1588·Published

Opinion

[566] Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding-precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Robertson appeals the district court’s marginal order, entered on April 24, 2009, denying his motion to reconsider the dismissal of his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find the district did not abuse its discretion in denying Robertson’s motion to reconsider. See Boryan v. United States, 884 F.2d 767, 771 (4th Cir.1989) (providing review standard). 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.

AFFIRMED.

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

[566] Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding-precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kevin Robertson appeals the district court’s marginal order, entered on April 24, 2009, denying his motion to reconsider the dismissal of his civil action. We have reviewed the record and find the district did not abuse its discretion in denying Robertson’s motion to reconsider. See Boryan v. United States, 884 F.2d 767, 771 (4th Cir.1989) (providing review standard). 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.

AFFIRMED.

Robertson v. Franchot, 334 F. App'x 565 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

334 F. App'x 565 (Robertson v. Franchot) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related