Siegel v. Arlington County Department of Community Planning Housing & Development , 79 F. App'x 571 ( 2003 )

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1057
GEORGE ROGER SIEGEL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ARLINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
PLANNING HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT, and Its
Agencies; CRESCENT RESOURCES, LLC; FRANK
LASCH, Mid/Atlantic Property Manager;
ARLINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 17th Circuit
Court and its Judges and Staff; UNITED STATES
CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION; SECRETARY OF THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR;
UNKNOWN AGENTS, and Officers of Department of
the Interior; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA;
ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA; COMMONWEALTH
ATLANTIC PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED; CRESCENT
POTOMAC PROPERTIES, LLC; EDWARD M. SMITH, c/o
BM Smith & Associates,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 03-1220
GEORGE ROGER SIEGEL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ARLINGTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
PLANNING HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT, and Its
Agencies; CRESCENT RESOURCES, LLC; FRANK
LASCH, Mid/Atlantic Property Manager;
ARLINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 17th Circuit
Court and its Judges and Staff; UNITED STATES
CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION; SECRETARY OF THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR;
UNKNOWN AGENTS, and Officers of Department of
the Interior, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA;
ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA; COMMONWEALTH
ATLANTIC PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED; CRESCENT
POTOMAC PROPERTIES, LLC; EDWARD M. SMITH, c/o
BM Smith & Associates,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (CA-02-902-A)
Submitted: September 29, 2003 Decided: October 29, 2003
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
George Roger Siegel, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
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). Having reviewed
the record and finding no reversible error, 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, 2002 & entered Dec. 5, 2002).
In No. 03-1220, Siegel appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(a), (b)(4). We review denial of a motion to correct a
clerical mistake, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), for abuse of discretion.
Kocher v. Dow Chem. Co., 132 F.3d 1225, 1229 (8th Cir. 1997). We
find no such abuse of discretion. Siegel also moved for relief from
judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), asserting that the
judgment was void. We review Rule 60(b)(4) motions de novo. New
York Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 84 F.3d 137, 142 (5th Cir. 1996).
Having reviewed Siegel’s allegations and the district court’s
ruling de novo, we conclude that the district court’s order
dismissing the action was not void or otherwise subject to attack.
3
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
4