Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Arthur Gooden, II v. United States, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    1) Arthur Lee Gooden, II appealed the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of its order dismissing his civil complaint and denying multiple post-judgment filings. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3) The Fourth Circuit also affirmed the district court's decision to decline granting Gooden's other post-judgment demands, and denied Gooden's motion to seal an attachment filed with his motion.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-05-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-1129

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Arthur Lee Gooden, II appealed the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of its order dismissing his civil complaint and denying multiple post-judgment filings. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3) The Fourth Circuit also affirmed the district court's decision to decline granting Gooden's other post-judgment demands, and denied Gooden's motion to seal an attachment filed with his motion.

    Copyright:

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

    Arthur Gooden, II v. United States, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Arthur Lee Gooden, II appealed the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of its order dismissing his civil complaint and denying multiple post-judgment filings. 2) The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3) The Fourth Circuit also affirmed the district court's decision to decline granting Gooden's other post-judgment demands, and denied Gooden's motion to seal an attachment filed with his motion.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-1129

    ARTHUR LEE GOODEN, II,


    Plaintiff Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; BARACK
    HUSSEIN OBAMA; TONYA R. HENDERSON-STITH; CHRISTOPHER W.
    HUTTON; BONNIE L. JONES; TIMOTHY FISHER; VINCENT H. CONWAY;
    ALBERT PATRICK; GARY MILLS; BRYANT LEE SUGG; RICHARD KURNS;
    ALFRED MASTERS; PAMELA JONES; WILLIAM H. SHAW; PETER
    TRENCH; MATHEWS; NELSON T. OVERTON; JANE & JOHN DOES,
    1-100; JANE & JOHN DOES, A-Z (all officers of the
    Commonwealth of Virginia); JANE & JOHN DOES, I-X; JANE &
    JOHN DOES, A-Z (all officers of the United States),
    Defendants - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District
    Judge. (4:13-cv-00126-MSD-TEM)

    Submitted:

    May 5, 2014

    Decided:

    May 21, 2014

    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Arthur Lee Gooden, II, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Arthur Lee Gooden, II, appeals the district courts
    order

    denying

    dismissing

    his

    his

    motion
    civil

    post-judgment filings.

    for

    reconsideration

    complaint

    and

    of

    its

    denying

    order

    multiple

    On review of the record, we conclude

    that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
    relief pursuant to either Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or Fed. R. Civ.
    P. 60(b) and did not err in declining to grant Goodens other
    post-judgment demands.

    See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp.,

    599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for Rule
    59(e)); MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277
    (4th

    Cir.

    2008)

    (standard

    of

    review

    for

    Rule

    60(b)).

    Accordingly, we affirm based on the reasoning of the district


    court.

    Gooden v. United States, No. 4:13-cv-00126-MSD-TEM (E.D.

    Va. filed Dec. 6 & entered Dec. 9, 2013).

    We deny Goodens

    motion to seal the attachment to his motion filed on April 15,


    2014.
    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and


    contentions
    this

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like