Sewell v. Office of the Attorney General

Fourth Circuit

Sewell v. Office of the Attorney General

610 F. App'x 257

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided July 23, 2015·No. No. 15-6316·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Emmanuel Edward Sewell appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sewell v. Office of the Attorney Gen. of Md., No. 8:12-cv-02656-DKC (D.Md. Jan. 23, 2015). 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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Emmanuel Edward Sewell appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sewell v. Office of the Attorney Gen. of Md., No. 8:12-cv-02656-DKC (D.Md. Jan. 23, 2015). 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.

Sewell v. Office of the Attorney General, 610 F. App'x 257 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

610 F. App'x 257 (Sewell v. Office of the Attorney General) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related