Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Edward A. Ganey v. Ralph D. Edwards Walter L. Kautzky Sam P. Garrison Charles E. Smith Daniel G. Durham, 804 F.2d 677, 4th Cir. (1986)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes the court's decision to affirm the district court's refusal to reopen an earlier judgment in the case of Edward A. Ganey v. Ralph D. Edwards et al. The appeals court found that the plaintiff, Edward A. Ganey, was improperly trying to relitigate and vacate the earlier judgment simply because he was dissatisfied with the results, which is not permitted under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court's denial of relief was determined to be within its proper discretion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1986-11-03 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 804 F.2d 677 Docket: 86-7124

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes the court's decision to affirm the district court's refusal to reopen an earlier judgment in the case of Edward A. Ganey v. Ralph D. Edwards et al. The appeals court found that the plaintiff, Edward A. Ganey, was improperly trying to relitigate and vacate the earlier judgment simply because he was dissatisfied with the results, which is not permitted under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court's denial of relief was determined to be within its proper discretion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    10 views2 pages

    Edward A. Ganey v. Ralph D. Edwards Walter L. Kautzky Sam P. Garrison Charles E. Smith Daniel G. Durham, 804 F.2d 677, 4th Cir. (1986)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court case summary from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. It summarizes the court's decision to affirm the district court's refusal to reopen an earlier judgment in the case of Edward A. Ganey v. Ralph D. Edwards et al. The appeals court found that the plaintiff, Edward A. Ganey, was improperly trying to relitigate and vacate the earlier judgment simply because he was dissatisfied with the results, which is not permitted under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court's denial of relief was determined to be within its proper discretion.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    804 F.

    2d 677
    Unpublished Disposition

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Edward A. GANEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Ralph D. EDWARDS; Walter L. Kautzky; Sam P. Garrison;
    Charles E. Smith; Daniel G. Durham, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 86-7124.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted June 27, 1986.
    Decided Nov. 3, 1986.

    Edward A. Ganey, appellant pro se.


    Lucien Capone, Office of the Attorney General, for appellees.
    E.D.N.C.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before WIDENER, HALL and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    Edward A. Ganey appeals the district court's refusal to reopen the judgment in
    Ganey v. Edwards, C/A No. 78-184-CRT (E.D.N.C., Dec. 14, 1983), aff'd, 759
    F.2d 337 (4th Cir.1985), to permit Ganey to relitigate his entitlement to
    compensatory and punitive damages. We affirm the district court's denial of
    relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).
    Rule 60(b) may not be used to vacate a judgment simply because a party is

    dissatisfied with the results achieved. See United States v. Williams, 674 F.2d
    310, 313 (4th Cir.1982). Nor may the Rule be used as a substitute for appeal.
    Martinez-McBean v. Government of Virgin Islands, 562 F.2d 908, 911-13 (3d
    Cir.1977). Ganey has shown none of the reasons that would justify disturbing
    the judgment under Rule 60(b). We therefore conclude that the district court
    acted well within its discretion in denying the relief sought by Ganey. See
    Harman v. Pauley, 678 F.2d 479 (4th Cir.1982).

    The order of the district court is affirmed. We dispense with oral argument
    because the materials before the Court fully develop the facts and legal
    contentions and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED.

    You might also like