Siegel v. Arlington County Department of Community Planning Housing

Fourth Circuit

Siegel v. Arlington County Department of Community Planning Housing

65 F. App'x 470

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 30, 2003

DocketNos. 03-1057, 03-1220

StatusPublished

This text of 65 F. App'x 470 (Siegel v. Arlington County Department of Community Planning Housing) 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

Siegel v. Arlington County Department of Community Planning Housing, 65 F. App'x 470 (4th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated cases, George Roger Siegel appeals two orders of the district court. In No. 03-1057, he challenges the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We review de novo the district court’s decision to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Tillman v. Resolution Trust Corp., 37 F.3d 1032, 1034 (4th Cir.1994). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Siegel v. Arlington County Dep’t of Community Planning, No. CA-02-902-A (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 2, 2003 & entered Dec. 5, 2002; filed Jan. 23, 2003 & entered Jan. 24, 2003). In No. 03-1220, Siegel appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider under Rule 60, Fed. R.Civ.P. We review denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion, Werner v. Carbo, 731 F.2d 204, 206 (4th Cir.1984), and we find no such abuse here. We deny Siegel’s motion to remand; 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

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated cases, George Roger Siegel appeals two orders of the district court. In No. 03-1057, he challenges the district court’s order dismissing his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We review de novo the district court’s decision to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Tillman v. Resolution Trust Corp., 37 F.3d 1032, 1034 (4th Cir.1994). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Siegel v. Arlington County Dep’t of Community Planning, No. CA-02-902-A (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 2, 2003 & entered Dec. 5, 2002; filed Jan. 23, 2003 & entered Jan. 24, 2003). In No. 03-1220, Siegel appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider under Rule 60, Fed. R.Civ.P. We review denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion, Werner v. Carbo, 731 F.2d 204, 206 (4th Cir.1984), and we find no such abuse here. We deny Siegel’s motion to remand; 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 F. App'x 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siegel-v-arlington-county-department-of-community-planning-housing-ca4-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack