Sewell v. Prince George's County Department of Social Services

Fourth Circuit

Sewell v. Prince George's County Department of Social Services

560 F. App'x 175

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 10, 2014

DocketNo. 13-2242

StatusPublished

This text of 560 F. App'x 175 (Sewell v. Prince George's County Department of Social Services) 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

Sewell v. Prince George's County Department of Social Services, 560 F. App'x 175 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Starsha Sewell appeals the district court’s order denying, for want of jurisdiction, her Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order remanding this action to state court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sewell v. Prince George’s Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., No. 8:12-cv-02402-DKC (D.Md. Oct. 1, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in [176]*176the 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Starsha Sewell appeals the district court’s order denying, for want of jurisdiction, her Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order remanding this action to state court. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Sewell v. Prince George’s Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., No. 8:12-cv-02402-DKC (D.Md. Oct. 1, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in [176]*176the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

560 F. App'x 175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sewell-v-prince-georges-county-department-of-social-services-ca4-2014.