United States v. Rudisill

475 F. App'x 876
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Rudisill. Read the opinion of the Court — 358 F. App'x 421
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided August 27, 2012·No. No. 12-6851·Published

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Timnah Rudisill appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to amend his previously filed Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. As noted by the district court, it could not allow Rudisill to amend his Rule 60(b) motion as the motion was no longer pending. The Rule 60(b) motion had been denied in December 2008. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Rudisill, Nos. 1:01-cr-00048-MR-9; 1:05-cv-00212-MR (W.D.N.C. Apr. 24, 2012). 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

United States v. Rudisill, 475 F. App'x 876 (4th Cir. 2012).

475 F. App'x 876 (United States v. Rudisill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.