Wilder v. Holder

E.D. North Carolina

Wilder v. Holder

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 14, 2024

Docket7:14-cv-00215

StatusUnknown

This text of Wilder v. Holder (Wilder v. Holder) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilder v. Holder, (E.D.N.C. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION No. 7:14-CV-215-BO LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR., _ ) Plaintiff, V. ORDER ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER, Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on a motion by plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeking appointment of counsel, a hearing, relief from a judgment or order pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, recusal, to change venue, as well as other relief. As the Court has previously cited, this case has been dismissed, judgment has been entered, appeals have been taken, and mandates have issued. See [DE 34]. Plaintiff's current motion is once again difficult to decipher and does not appear to provide the Court with any basis upon which to provide plaintiff with any relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60; Dowell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Auto. Ins. Co., 993 F.2d 46, 48 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, plaintiffs motion [DE 35] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this 13 day of February 2024.

Attell renee eee UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA SOUTHERN DIVISION No. 7:14-CV-215-BO LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER, SR., _ ) Plaintiff, V. ORDER ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER, Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on a motion by plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeking appointment of counsel, a hearing, relief from a judgment or order pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, recusal, to change venue, as well as other relief. As the Court has previously cited, this case has been dismissed, judgment has been entered, appeals have been taken, and mandates have issued. See [DE 34]. Plaintiff's current motion is once again difficult to decipher and does not appear to provide the Court with any basis upon which to provide plaintiff with any relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60; Dowell v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Auto. Ins. Co., 993 F.2d 46, 48 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, plaintiffs motion [DE 35] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED, this 13 day of February 2024.

Attell renee eee UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wilder v. Holder, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilder-v-holder-nced-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack