The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
03-7943•Michael O. Devaughn, a/k/a Michael DeVaughn v. ISAAC JOHNSON, JR., Assistant United States Attorney
03-7943Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 18, 2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7943
MICHAEL O. DEVAUGHN, a/k/a Michael DeVaughn,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
ISAAC JOHNSON, JR., Assistant United States
Attorney; J. WESLEY HOLBROOK, Assistant United
States Attorney,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(CA-01-2657-4-24)
Submitted: March 11, 2004 Decided: March 18, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael O. DeVaughn, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Michael O. DeVaughn appeals the district court’s order
denying relief on his motion to reconsider under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b). We have reviewed the record and find that DeVaughn failed
to establish ground for relief under the Rule. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b). Thus, we do not find that the district court abused its
discretion in denying the motion. United States v. Holland, 214
F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we affirm. 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.