John Kimble v. Rajesh Rajpal , 585 F. App'x 186 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1538
JOHN B. KIMBLE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
RAJESH K. RAJPAL, M.D.; RAJESH K. RAJPAL, trading as See
Clearly Vision Group, L.L.C.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00298-CMH-IDD)
Submitted: October 30, 2014 Decided: November 14, 2014
Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John B. Kimble, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Clyde Marriner,
COWDREY THOMPSON PC, Easton, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John B. Kimble filed a civil action against Rajesh K.
Rajpal, M.D., and related corporate parties, asserting Virginia
tort law claims under diversity jurisdiction. The district
court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction and denied
Kimble’s subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion seeking relief
from that judgment. Kimble appealed, and we affirmed.
Kimble v. Rajpal, 566 F. App’x 261, 263-64 (4th Cir. 2014) (Nos.
13-2140, 14-1024). After our opinion issued, Kimble filed a
motion and amended motion “to reinstate and substitute parties,”
which the district court denied. Kimble also filed a Rule 59(e)
motion seeking reconsideration of that order. Kimble now
appeals the orders denying these post-appeal motions.
We review these orders for abuse of discretion. See
Equal Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Assocs., 602 F.3d 597, 603
(4th Cir. 2010); Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., 599 F.3d 403,
407 (4th Cir. 2010). Our review of the record demonstrates no
abuse of discretion, as Kimble was not entitled to reinstate his
claims with new parties or to continue the litigation on its
merits following our opinion affirming its dismissal. Insofar
as Kimble’s informal brief raises claims unrelated to the orders
at issue in this appeal, these arguments are not properly before
us.
2
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders.
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.
AFFIRMED
3