Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Joseph Daniels v. Paul Caldwell, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    This document is a summary of a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Joseph Daniels appealed a district court order denying his motion for judgment. The district court construed Daniels' motion as one for relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's ruling. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-04-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-7884

    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 summary of a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Joseph Daniels appealed a district court order denying his motion for judgment. The district court construed Daniels' motion as one for relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's ruling. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Joseph Daniels v. Paul Caldwell, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a summary of a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Joseph Daniels appealed a district court order denying his motion for judgment. The district court construed Daniels' motion as one for relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, so it affirmed the district court's ruling. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 15-7884

    JOSEPH A. DANIELS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    PAUL E. CALDWELL,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    Robert E. Payne, Senior
    District Judge. (3:14-cv-00856-REP-RCY)

    Submitted:

    April 19, 2016

    Decided:

    April 21, 2016

    Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Joseph A. Daniels, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Joseph
    denying

    A.

    his

    Daniels

    Motion

    appeals

    for

    the

    Judgment

    district
    that

    the

    courts

    order

    district

    court

    construed as motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).


    have

    reviewed

    the

    record

    and

    find

    no

    reversible

    We

    error.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district


    court.

    Daniels v. Caldwell, No. 3:14-cv-00856-REP-RCY (E.D. Va.

    Nov. 16, 2015).


    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the


    contentions

    are

    adequately

    this

    and

    argument

    court

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like