Calvin Brown v. Sears Holding Management Corp ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-1212
    CALVIN EARL BROWN,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    SEARS   HOLDING   MANAGEMENT  CORPORATION,   d/b/a  Kmart
    Corporation #7080; THOMAS M. COLCLOUGH, Director US EEOC,
    Raleigh Area Office; STEVE DOOLEY; RAJENONAKYMAR PATEL;
    JAYESH PATEL,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever, III,
    Chief District Judge. (4:14-cv-00033-D)
    Submitted:   May 18, 2016                  Decided:   May 20, 2016
    Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Calvin Earl Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Paul S. Holscher, JACKSON
    LEWIS PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, David A. Hughes, JACKSON
    LEWIS PC, Atlanta, Georgia; Roberto Francisco Ramirez, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Calvin     Earl    Brown   appeals       the     district    court’s     order
    denying   his   second    motion    to   reconsider      the     court’s    earlier
    order     denying       his     civil        action     alleging      employment
    discrimination.        We have reviewed the record and find no abuse
    of discretion by the district court.                See Werner v. Carbo, 
    731 F.2d 204
    , 206 (4th Cir. 1984) (noting review standard for Fed.
    R. Civ. P. 60(b) denial). *        Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed
    in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal.               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.
    DISMISSED
    * Because Brown’s motion to reconsider was filed greater
    than 28 days after the district court’s order dismissing his
    civil action, the district court’s review was under Fed. R. Civ.
    P. 60(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-1212

Filed Date: 5/20/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021